Oh, dear God, another dispatch from Cargo Cult Central.
If these muppets had understood anything whatsoever about evidence or the judicial process (since that's what they claimed they were applying, Cthulu alone knows why) they'd have realised that Frenkel telling them that his agreement with Tor (which they had not seen) forbade him apologising was classic hearsay evidence and being self-serving hearsay evidence (that is, hearsay evidence benefitting the person putting it forward) it was of very little probative value. However, the obvious action at the time (no, not a month or two later after all sorts of kerfuffle in the meantime) would have been to drop an email to Macmillan (NOT MacMillan - he used to be both our PM and the Chancellor of my university, so I should know) saying, "Excuse me, having a bit of an investigation into harassment over here; the accused says you've got a legal agreement with you under which you forbid him apologising to women he admits he's harassed*, what do you say about it?"
At which point they'd have got the email back which they now have got - which, by the way, is also hearsay, since all documentary evidence is hearsay, and documentary evidence which describes the contents of a document not itself in evidence (or a non-document, given that Frenkel was either asserting the evidence of a document that doesn't exist at all, or doesn't exist in the form described) but would have had higher probative value because Macmillan had less reason to lie.
[The only direct evidence which used to be admissible of the contents of documents was having the person who produced them give direct oral evidence under oath and subject to cross-examination of their contents and the authenticity of the copy before the court, which is why British crime and court dramas have so many scenes of a man in a wig glaring at a man in a helmet and saying, "Officer, this is your notebook? Can you read out to us the relevant section?" Naturally this got far too much faff in the internet age, so now there are various rules about lists-of-document-verified-by-statement-of-truth and presumptions-as-to-authencity and orders-for-specific-disclosure and, of course, what used to be called the subpoena duces tecum]
But they could then have gone back to Frenkel and said, "Er, were you sure about this agreement?" and he would have gone, "Oh, sure, we negotiated it for ages and I remember the clause in particular because my lawyer wanted it out because I was desperate to apologise but their lawyer said no way, it'd open up a huge can of worms and expose the company to law-suits so very reluctantly I agreed, and it's very unfortunate but what can you do, you know what these lawyers are" at which point they could have whipped out the email and gone "Aha! Take him down to the cells, sergeant!"** [I'm suggesting that if they want to play Perry Mason, it might do them good to have actually watched the show.]
At which point they could have perma-banned him for contempt of the disciplinary process, plus harassment*** and told him if he squawked about it all bets would be off regarding what they said about it in public spaces.
Muppets. Muppets.
*If the question of an apology was on the table at all, one presumes that the committee had at least accepted that harassment had occurred and Frenkel had at least admitted that acts which might have been construed as harassment if looked at sideways from the bottom of a glass might also have occurred. Though nothing, of course, can be taken for granted.
** The above is, of course, RPF of a hypothetical situation, but if you want a real life example of something like that happening (and costing the party with the disastrous witness three figure numbers of millions as a result, try here , para 174 onwards.
***Generally speaking, a witness proven to have lied about one aspect can be taken to have had his credibility shot on other aspects of his defence, too, and anyway in the scenario where they'd actually understood evidence they'd have got more stuff from complainants and other witnesses too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-24 06:28 am (UTC)If these muppets had understood anything whatsoever about evidence or the judicial process (since that's what they claimed they were applying, Cthulu alone knows why) they'd have realised that Frenkel telling them that his agreement with Tor (which they had not seen) forbade him apologising was classic hearsay evidence and being self-serving hearsay evidence (that is, hearsay evidence benefitting the person putting it forward) it was of very little probative value. However, the obvious action at the time (no, not a month or two later after all sorts of kerfuffle in the meantime) would have been to drop an email to Macmillan (NOT MacMillan - he used to be both our PM and the Chancellor of my university, so I should know) saying, "Excuse me, having a bit of an investigation into harassment over here; the accused says you've got a legal agreement with you under which you forbid him apologising to women he admits he's harassed*, what do you say about it?"
At which point they'd have got the email back which they now have got - which, by the way, is also hearsay, since all documentary evidence is hearsay, and documentary evidence which describes the contents of a document not itself in evidence (or a non-document, given that Frenkel was either asserting the evidence of a document that doesn't exist at all, or doesn't exist in the form described) but would have had higher probative value because Macmillan had less reason to lie.
[The only direct evidence which used to be admissible of the contents of documents was having the person who produced them give direct oral evidence under oath and subject to cross-examination of their contents and the authenticity of the copy before the court, which is why British crime and court dramas have so many scenes of a man in a wig glaring at a man in a helmet and saying, "Officer, this is your notebook? Can you read out to us the relevant section?" Naturally this got far too much faff in the internet age, so now there are various rules about lists-of-document-verified-by-statement-of-truth and presumptions-as-to-authencity and orders-for-specific-disclosure and, of course, what used to be called the subpoena duces tecum]
But they could then have gone back to Frenkel and said, "Er, were you sure about this agreement?" and he would have gone, "Oh, sure, we negotiated it for ages and I remember the clause in particular because my lawyer wanted it out because I was desperate to apologise but their lawyer said no way, it'd open up a huge can of worms and expose the company to law-suits so very reluctantly I agreed, and it's very unfortunate but what can you do, you know what these lawyers are" at which point they could have whipped out the email and gone "Aha! Take him down to the cells, sergeant!"** [I'm suggesting that if they want to play Perry Mason, it might do them good to have actually watched the show.]
At which point they could have perma-banned him for contempt of the disciplinary process, plus harassment*** and told him if he squawked about it all bets would be off regarding what they said about it in public spaces.
Muppets. Muppets.
*If the question of an apology was on the table at all, one presumes that the committee had at least accepted that harassment had occurred and Frenkel had at least admitted that acts which might have been construed as harassment if looked at sideways from the bottom of a glass might also have occurred. Though nothing, of course, can be taken for granted.
** The above is, of course, RPF of a hypothetical situation, but if you want a real life example of something like that happening (and costing the party with the disastrous witness three figure numbers of millions as a result, try here , para 174 onwards.
***Generally speaking, a witness proven to have lied about one aspect can be taken to have had his credibility shot on other aspects of his defence, too, and anyway in the scenario where they'd actually understood evidence they'd have got more stuff from complainants and other witnesses too.