Raphael Golb was given permission to write.
Judge Berkman, in her November sentencing, gave him permission to write about his case.
So he wrote this:
"The Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal: How I Was Convicted of a Crime" Nov. 2010:
Here Raphael provides a multitude of details, most of which will be quite new to readers- much was even new to me too.
Raphael's essay ties together loose ends; shows everyone's part in the case; etc; and it will be clearer how the case was too complicated for a jury.
A great deal of his account, you will find, this blog of mine had gotten wrong, or halfway wrong, or hadn't known about at all. I apologize! There are folks who believe I get my info direct, so I repeat that this blog is my personal understanding- which I interpret my own way, clear with no one, and no one corrects me. I'm sure I'm often mistaken.
-------------------
Originally there was a second article by a "Golb"- the father this time- which I was pressured into taking down, by the types of comments I received. It was a link to Raphael Golb's father's reaction to a document that the prosecution used in the trial as evidence against his son.
Before I say more about this, I want to advise:
WHAT SCHOLAR IS "RIGHT" OR "WRONG"- what scholar did or did not "plagiarize"- and even whether Raphael's accusations are true OR FALSE (a civil matter, not a criminal one)- actually HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, or the questions i'm trying to raise.
Because I don't focus on facts or people's opinions about those facts. I focus on HOW Raphael expressed himself: I focus on "internet impersonation."
I believe this prosecution document was Professor Schiffman's detailed scholarly defense on what Raphael said was plagiarized. Which puzzles me, as this was not a civil libel case, so I wouldn't think Schiffman needed to write a defense of his scholarship.
I put up the link to Golb's father's reaction, but the comments I received were about the Dead Sea Scrolls debate itself. But I instruct in my Disclaimer that I'm not interested in the scholarship. More importantly, I have no understanding, no right to an opinion, and certainly no right to moderate a forum about it. Because as the writer, I am automatically the comments moderator.
Worse was the tone- unconstructive, some even destructive comments, more ad hominem than discussion, about the scholarship of individuals in the debates. This is a battle I don't want to be in. And this is not the tone I want my blog in.
So "they won"- I took down Raphael Golb's father's article. The best way to win over me is to be less than gracious.
