Trial By Error: The Crawley Chronicles, Continued

Interesting to note that the wording was "it is my understanding" regarding the alleged senior-level discussion.
This is more vague wording that could mean something or nothing at all. Could be true, could be face-saving bs.

Either way, that David has never heard about it is the neon sign.
 
They seem to have some competence issues in the legal department, too, then:


Dear Mr Tuller,

I can confirm that we have not sent a cease and desist letter in defence of Prof. Crawley, despite the fact that Prof. Crawley said we had. We have however, had secret communications with some old buffer at your place who always has lunch with one of our old buffers when he comes over to visit the Bodleian and we’re really hoping he can trim your wings a bit because frankly this is all pretty awkward for us. Oh bugger, did I just say that?


Yours etc. etc. …
 
Allele said:
Interesting to note that the wording was "it is my understanding" regarding the alleged senior-level discussion.
This is more vague wording that could mean something or nothing at all. Could be true, could be face-saving bs.

Either way, that David has never heard about it is the neon sign.
Click to expand...
It creates distance between Bristol Uni and Esther. It allows them to throw her under the bus later on.
 
Trish said:
That bit about the quiet word between Bristol Uni and David Tuller's employer is sinister. And it reminds me of the same strategy Keith Geraghty revealed that was used to try to discredit him with his University. Very unethical.

Perhaps it's time for David's University to have a quiet and confidential word with Bristol Uni suggesting they look more closely at the quality and ethics of Crawley's work. They are making fools of themselves supporting her in this.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Or there are more public responses. I suspect the author of the letter does not quite realise what she has got herself into here. Whichever way you read it the letter is totally unprofessional.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Agreed. Or there are more public responses. I suspect the author of the letter does not quite realise what she has got herself into here. Whichever way you read it the letter is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...

I wondered if she knew exactly what she was saying and it reflects her unhappiness at the situation. Why else say no we didn't send a cease and desist letter but tried to apply pressure through back channels. She is the director of legal services at Bristol so I doubt she is naive.
 
Adrian said:
I wondered if she knew exactly what she was saying and it reflects her unhappiness at the situation. Why else say no we didn't send a cease and desist letter but tried to apply pressure through back channels. She is the director of legal services at Bristol so I doubt she is naive.
Click to expand...

The wording seems wrong for that interpretation, although it is an interesting one. Perhaps all will become clear.
 
What surprised me from the beginning was that David Tuller knew of no cease and desist letter. This means, IF a letter was sent, it was sent without certified mail, which is VERY uncommon when it comes to legal matters, because such a letter will be most probably useless. The alleged receiver could just contradict ever having received any letter even if a letter was sent. Without proof, it's practically worthless.

If a legal department sent a letter with critical content without a sending proof, I would call that stupid or highly unprofessional.
 
Adrian said:
I wondered if she knew exactly what she was saying and it reflects her unhappiness at the situation. Why else say no we didn't send a cease and desist letter but tried to apply pressure through back channels. She is the director of legal services at Bristol so I doubt she is naive.
Click to expand...

Surely 'confidential' should mean just that? It's rather akin to a Private Eye letting his mark know he's following them. (Apols if this has already been said!).
 
How about a FOIA request to Bristol for the Magic Number? That being the number of times Crawley is found out in her lies before they actually DO something about it? It would be nice to know ;) Give us an idea how far along the process we might be....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adrian said:
She is the director of legal services at Bristol so I doubt she is naive.
Click to expand...
Bad assumption. I suspect she is in way over her neck.

Bristol Uni are probably priding themselves on showing loyalty to one of their star researchers, but blind loyalty without checking the facts is going to get them into deep shit. Trying to do the British old-boy "we've had a word" with an American University and then making what is supposed to be a vaguely menacing reference to it is crass stupidity.

Looks to me like Bristol Uni are playing the Karolinska institute to Esther's Macchiarini - they should check how well that ended:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Macchiarini#Fallout_for_Karolinska_Institute

Fallout for Karolinska Institute
The secretary of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, Urban Lendahl, resigned in February 2016, owing to his involvement in recruiting Macchiarini to Karolinska Institutet in 2010.[7][61] Shortly afterwards the vice chancellor, Anders Hamsten, who in 2015 had cleared Macchiarini of scientific misconduct also resigned.[8][62]

...

On September 5, 2016, the Swedish government moved to dismiss the entire board of the Institute.[66] Shortly afterwards Harriet Wallberg and Anders Hamsten were removed from the judging panel that is responsible for annually choosing the Nobel Prize for Medicine, selection of which is additionally overseen by Karolinska Institutet.[67]
Click to expand...

So good luck with that Bristol Uni - if the penny doesn't drop with someone there soon and they want to go all the way defending Esther I'll be settling down on my sofa with a large bucket of popcorn. And I don't even eat popcorn, but for Esther I'll happily make an exception.
 
Do we have any Bristol alumni here?

I read last week that Russell group universities including Bristol are investigating the wealth of their alumni with a view to tapping them for a donation.
Follow the money. Surely we/ ME community has an alumnus from Bristol. A complaint from potential future donor/s might concentrate the mind.
 
it is my understanding that private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behaviour towards staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol.
Click to expand...
There is another possible spin on this. (Yes I know it's all speculation - but this whole thing does have its entertainment value).

Supposing there has been no clandestine communications on the subject between the upper echelons of the two Unis, but Sue Paterson wanted to make it sound like such pressure was nonetheless being applied? If she knows there hasn't, but nonetheless wanted to give the impression it had, that might explain the backside-covering phrase "it is my understanding".

Probably no way of knowing, but it would be very interesting to know if any such communication ever really happened. I wouldn't be amazed if it never did, and it were just a deeply misguided, localised Bristol Uni ploy intended to intimidate, and maybe try and recover from having to concede that EC lied about the cease and desist letter. If so, then they would be treating Berkeley as another pawn in their game.
 
Well if we're speculating wildly, how about every time the legal department gets an email, all they do is check with Esther? This time Esther could have said "Ok no I didn't send a cease and desist letter, but my boss has had a word with his boss and boy is he in big trouble now!" Which the legal department accepts without question and responds accordingly on that basis.

There needs to be a mechanism at Bristol Uni whereby EC's delusional rantings are checked for accuracy, instead of just inviting EC to respond and sending it out in the name of Bristol Uni's legal department.
 
Adrian said:
I wondered if she knew exactly what she was saying and it reflects her unhappiness at the situation. Why else say no we didn't send a cease and desist letter but tried to apply pressure through back channels. She is the director of legal services at Bristol so I doubt she is naive.
Click to expand...
I think David Tuller likely caught EC completely off guard, and in attempting to bluster her way out of her predicament, in front of all her worshippers, she blurted out the best she could come up with to try and sound big and gain the high ground ... :):D:rofl:.
 
chrisb said:
Interesting to note that the Vice Chancellor of Bristol University, Prof Hugh Brady received a Ph D for research in renal physiology.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's significant that the VC was a medical researcher himself.
I wonder how aware he is of the situation. He may know no more than that EC brings in big bucks for her research projects and claims to be a world leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom