Friday, 23 May 2014

Dr. Paula Boddington and the Chronology Protection Conjecture, II

In response to the allegation about me that appeared in the Daily Mail, an allegation so delusional it requires me travelling in time from 2012 to 2011, it has been brought to my attention that Dr. Paula Boddington commented on Twitter around the time of these news reports, when others raised questions about this. Mr. Fardell, to whom my condolences go again, denies making this claim. Regarding the inquest, Dr. Boddington stated:
As someone - one of the few - who attended the inquest into the death of Charlotte Coursier, I can tell you that the most accurate report of the evidence presented at the inquest is actually to be found in the Daily Mail.
Dr. Mark Jago expressed concern on CDN's Twitter feed about the reporting. Dr. Boddington replied:
MJ: @paulaboddington On DM tone: I felt the 'he followed her to Oxford' bit in particular was far from neutral reporting.
PB: @Mark_Jago Yes but cld b read 2 ways: if you'd heard witness statement from which this was taken, it is understandable. You weren't there.
Dr. Boddington might at some point like to clarify the source of this "witness statement".

UPDATE (10 July 2014): Dr. Boddington maintains her steady literary output defending The Daily Mail's bizarre fabrications about me, including certain time-travel allegations against me. Dr. Boddington refuses to clarify the question that I and CDN asked, namely, the identity of the person whose "witness statement” engendered the most deluded of The Daily Mail fabrications. Let me try and explain a very simple concept here, a concept not hard to fathom, whose use requires merely logic, evidence and rational thinking: the concept is the concept of FALSE ALLEGATIONS. Ok – is that crystal clear? I have long wished to protect the memory of a person who tragically took her own life, and keep the true nature of her behaviour away from public scrutiny. If you wish Charlotte Coursier’s background to be revealed, then shame on you. Do not play games with other peoples' lives. It is despicable.

3 comments:

  1. A week later on Twitter, in response to CDN question about 5 March Cherwell article on open letter, Boddington says she will write to editors to correct attribution to the coroner of "a witness's opinion" about emails (that witness being Fardell, as named in all the papers). But Boddington makes no comment about the lack of attribution to a witness in the 27 Feb Cherwell coverage of the inquest, where this version of the (false) "following" allegation is made: "Coursier moved to pursue postgraduate studies at St Edmund Hall in October 2012. Ketland also came to Oxford soon after, taking up a lecturing position at Pembroke College."

    ReplyDelete
  2. In her Oxford Magazine article, Boddington argues for "transparency" and "objective" criteria. However, on these bizarre allegations in the "public domain" from a "public hearing" which she has announced herself to be an authoritative witness to, and even berated sceptics who "weren't there" for questioning the sensational reporting, she has obfuscated on the source of allegations that apparently have no objective basis at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also in her Oxford Magazine article, Boddington claims the "fury and confusion" surrounding the news of the inquest stems from the University of Oxford's lack of comment, and intricacies of policy. However, it is not clear what Boddington thinks "the case" is that the University should have commented on, or that there is a policy issue with, since the news only indicates that Coursier raised a concern with the OUSU (the very student body joining Boddington in criticizing the University).

    Boddington insinuates that the University's investigation into the death of Coursier is connected with this "case" (despite their not saying so), and that Ketland's notification of his own "termination" indicates that it is "apparently resolved" (ignoring what he actually says in his own statement, which indicates that he is scapegoated by the University as the result of what is called a "smear campaign" by "an Oxford philosopher" commenting on it).

    Surely the real source of the "difficult atmosphere" must be the false allegations themselves, presented in the worst tabloid reporting, which Boddington has defended even though she is in a position to help discredit these bizarre rumors.

    ReplyDelete