Reasonable Doubt: Raphael Golb Did Not Know of a Jonathan Seidel- Dead Sea Scrolls trial

Poet Frederick Seidel,

in 2006 called

"the best

American poet writing today"

by the New York Sun

(click for website)

Raphael Golb testified that

he was the inspiration

for the name 'Jonathan Seidel'

photo: Mark Mahane

NO 'REASONABLE DOUBT'!
Raphael Golb testified on his own behalf that he made up the name "Jonathan Seidel," not knowing there was a Rabbi and professor across the country in Oregon who happened to have that name, who had once given a seminar on the Dead Sea Scrolls- if I remember correctly, out in Oregon, years ago.
Raphael said he used the name 'Jonathan Seidel" in some emails he sent to museums complaining about biased exhibits.

Please keep in mind while you read this, that for each of the several misdemeanors incurred against Rabbi "Jonathan Seidel," the judge gave Raphael 3-month (concurrent) prison sentences in Rikers Island State Penitentiary.

The jury in the Dead Sea Scrolls case was to decide if there was "reasonable doubt" as to whether Raphael Golb made up the name "Jonathan Seidel" or not. The jury found no "reasonable doubt." The jury decided that there was absolutely no possibility that Raphael Golb might have invented the name 'Jonathan Seidel" as he said, and they ruled him guilty of several criminal counts against Rabbi Jonathan Seidel, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

ONLY THIS ONE 'FACTUAL' DETAIL
Out of of the entire list of people that Raphael Golb faced charges on, it is only this one single individual- Rabbi "Jonathan Seidel"- whose name Raphael Golb says he did not use knowingly.

Please note:
The question of the name "Jonathan Seidel" was, in fact, the one and only piece of concrete "factual" evidence in the entire case where the jury had to decide ("beyond a reasonable doubt") if Raphael was lying.
________________________________________________


reminder:
Why Raphael Golb Pleaded Not Guilty
(Except for the case of Rabbi Jonathan Seidel), Raphael Golb did not disagree with the prosecution's "facts"- Raphael disagreed with what they said his "intentions" were.


The prosecution said he lied, when Raphael Golb said his intentions were "satire," a device commonly used in debate.
The prosecution claimed that Raphael Golb's intentions were not to satirize and parody people. They said his intentions were to get others to believe he actually was those people. The prosecution called these intentions "identity theft" and "criminal impersonation," all in the criminal sense.


That was the reason Raphael Golb pleaded "not guilty."
I discuss this further, in my posts:

What Exactly Was Raphael Golb Convicted Of?

Why Did Raphael Golb Plead Not Guilty? another Summary
____________________________________________________

SERIOUS CHARGES
It is important to note that the accusations concerning "Jonathan Seidel" are quite extreme. I have looked at what I believe to be the original Grand Jury Indictment and I interpret it as follows: if Raphael Golb did use the name "Jonathan Seidel," knowing it to belong to a particular individual Rabbi Jonathan Seidel, according to the original affidavit, Raphael faces four counts of Identity Theft, ten counts of Criminal Impersonation and four counts of Forgery, all "criminal."

The only single individual besides Rabbi Jonathan Seidel bringing more counts against Raphael Golb in that original Indictment is Dr. Lawrence Schiffman himself, having only one more criminal charge than Jonathan Seidel. This means that the "Jonathan Seidel" conviction is one of the weightiest in the entire case.

This is serious stuff. Especially since there is ample evidence of "reasonable doubt" as to whether Raphael Golb did or did not know of this particular Rabbi "Jonathan Seidel."

RABBI JONATHAN SEIDEL HAS NO DEAD SEA SCROLLS ENEMIES
Both Raphael Golb- and Rabbi Jonathan Seidel himself- testified that Seidel never took part in any of the Scrolls battles, had not publicly aligned himself to either theory- at least, so far as I remember, not in Seidel's testimony; Seidel had made no enemies, and on the stand he seemed an extremely polite, intelligent and sincere man.

Rabbi Seidel himself testified that he has no speciality in the Scrolls- Raphael testified the Scrolls were not even mentioned on Seidel's website (Raphael said he looked after the arrest).

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel simply was never part of the Scrolls debate; thus Raphael Golb has no axe to grind with him or reason to make fun of him. As far as I remember, Seidel never even mentioned any Scrolls opinions on the stand. That tells me he may not even be invested in an opinion.

RABBI JONATHAN SEIDEL IS NOT PASSIONATE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS DEBATES
If Jonathan Seidel had a very strong opinion (the Dead Sea Scrolls people do tend, it appears, to have passionate opinions) -had a very strong opinion in favor of Dr. Lawrence Schiffman's views on the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems to me the prosecution might have tried to use that as "proof"  that perhaps Raphael "knew" that. However, I don't remember the prosecuting attorney even asking Rabbi Seidel what his opinions were on the Dead Sea Scrolls debates.

For all I know, maybe Rabbi Seidel sides with Raphael's father! Or maybe he feels neutral on the Dead Sea Scrolls debates, or at least lukewarm. But as far as I can remember, Rabbi Seidel did not seem interested enough in the Dead Sea Scrolls debates to let us know his opinion on it.

I am convinced that because Rabbi Jonathan Seidel was not involved in any Dead Sea Scrolls debates and battles, Raphael Golb would have no reason to have heard of Rabbi Jonathan Seidel, have any feelings towards him, and thus no reason to use his name or to make fun of him.

Frederick Seidel's poetry collection

"Ooga Booga" won the 2006 

Los Angeles Times Book Prize.

Raphael Golb testified that

he was the inspiration 

for the name 'Jonathan Seidel'

RAPHAEL GOLB AGREES
Raphael Golb on the stand did admit to his defense attorney that he wrote everything he was accused of writing: all the emails and blogs, and email accounts, at all the computer IP addresses, everything. And it was a lot of stuff- it took the prosecuting attorney a couple of hours to show the jury all (not sure if all, maybe most?) that Raphael had written. (Actually to be precise, the jury was not shown most of the emails themselves, but rather, lists of their titles.)

70 INVENTED NAMES- STANDARD PRACTICE
Raphael Golb testified that he also invented about 70 additional names- pseudonyms, which even the prosecution testified was standard practice for online debate. One of these invented names, said Raphael, was "Jonathan Seidel."

Raphael gave the court a detailed description of his creative process in inventing the name "Jonathan Seidel." Raphael's description of his creative process is laid out in my post:
Raphael Golb Describes Creating the Name 'Jonathan Seidel'


So why would Raphael be lying, if out of two hours of emails and accounts and computer locations and names shown to the jury on-screen, Raphael pointed to one single name, "Jonathan Seidel," and said that one he didn't do on purpose?

REPEAT: JONATHAN SEIDEL IS NOT PART OF THE DEBATES
And what distinguishes the real Rabbi Jonathan Seidel from the other real people, whose names Raphael used (or as he might say, approximated)?

That Rabbi Jonathan Seidel was the only real person in the bunch who played no part in the smears and battles, had no enemies, did not know of Raphael, and whose only tie to the Dead Sea Scrolls was that he had taught a seminar once, I believe out in Oregon, years ago.

REASONABLE DOUBT. .
Raphael Golb also testified that in any of his correspondences using a "Seidel" email, he never identified himself as a Rabbi (Seidel is), never put "Rabbi" anywhere in his signature, never referred to a position as professor in Oregon, etc. Because, Raphael said, how could he know, since he did not know this man existed.

There was circumstantial evidence, details about Jonathan Seidel, which the prosecution claimed showed knowledge of the real 'Jonathan Seidel'; but it looked to me like unfortunate coincidence, as circumstantial evidence so often is. Whereas evidence that Raphael did not know of Rabbi Seidel looks overwhelming to me.

REASONABLE DOUBT. .
It seems to me that if Raphael Golb wanted to lie to 'get off the hook' about anything, it was rather unwise of him to waste a good lie on this one detail, misdemeanors at that. Seems to me that if Raphael Golb really wanted to get off the hook, he would have been better off choosing a detail connected with the two felony charges, to lie about instead.

For the coincidence of this name- and I believe I've demonstrated enough "reasonable doubt"- Raphael was convicted of serious criminal charges against Rabbi Jonathan Seidel. In the original indictment, there were 18 criminal charges concerning Rabbi Jonathan Seidel; for Dr. Schiffman, there was only one more. This is big stuff.

REASONABLE DOUBT. .
Whether or not you feel totally comfortable with Raphaels testimony on "Johnathan Seidel," I believe that Raphael Golb's defense team convincingly established- at the very least- "reasonable doubt" in the case of Jonathan Seidel.

Most people learn in school or at least on television what "reasonable doubt" means in a trial. For certain, the jury knew what it was, before they were chosen.

I was sure the jury would find "reasonable doubt" at least in the case of Jonathan Seidel; I'm so shocked that they did not see it.

Rikers Island State Penitentiary, NY
where Raphael Golb was sentenced for each misdemeanor against 
Rabbi 'Jonathan Seidel' to 3-month (concurrent) prison sentences

The District Attorney's office sought up to 4 years for Raphael Golb, upstate in Rikers Island State Penitentiary. In fact he was given 6 months, all charges concurrent. For the many charges against Rabbi Jonathan Seidel, he received 3 months prison for each, concurrent.

I like to compare Raphael Golb's 4-year recommended sentence to that of a man I once met who also served 4 years in the same State Penitentiary, for the rape of a woman he noticed jogging along the parkway. The rest was parole. Also he had a lifelong criminal history beginning as a juvenile.
_____________________________________________________

the Other Charges
In addition, the jury also ruled on "reasonable doubt" as to if Raphael Golb received a "benefit," or did "harm," or "annoyed" etc.- not just for Jonathan Seidel, for the others as well. 


I discussed some of these terms ("benefit" etc), in all their vagueness, in the same post I refer to above, What Exactly Was Raphael Golb Convicted Of?


And once again, don't forget to read:
Raphael Golb Describes Creating the Name 'Jonathan Seidel'


I am an English teacher. All my information and interpretations come from what I witnessed at the trial and read online. I took notes at the trial as best I could, and have looked for as much online as I can; but I do not always understand the nuances in law, or scholarship. If you see errors, please drop me a line.