tullisse(Toni) Murdock would have been the university's chancellor and is the one Reade named.
That's why perjury is a threat; so they can't go lying.That seems like a serious problem with the legal system. If an "expert" witness can go around lying like that, what makes them "expert" at all? And why are they only discredited after they're caught lying? Seems quite inefficient to me, but I don't know anything about the US' legal system so.
Yeah I just saw the update.tullisse(Toni) Murdock would have been the university's chancellor and is the one Reade named.
Potentially but -- Reade names Toni Murdoch as the chancellor -- she was the Chancellor of Antioch University Seattle. Though there was a separation in 1997, it seems.
Chancellor Toni Murdock on Antioch University and Higher Education
In 1997, Tullisse (Toni) Murdock was appointed the first female president of an Antioch campus (Seattle), where she served for nine years. She became…www.wyso.org
Yeah this is actually more what I'm thinking of over the bad people getting out because of this; what if her expert testimony put Innocents in jail and they've had no way of proving it. Not a year goes by anymore without someone who has been in jail for decades getting proven innocentyep and it can go many ways. There could have been innocents locked up for years on her testimony and there can be abusers released due to her being a key part of the conviction.
I don't see anything in the article mentioning the Chancellor was contacted. Am I missing something?
Edit: Seems I wasn't the only one confused.
Oh I know. It's just if I remember the words correct, she taught classes for at least a year or more. That's pretty bold, to say you actively taught students for a significant period that's a lie.
I mistyped, I meant 2007 and not 1997 -- I'm dyslexic and saw the 1997 in the article and that's where my brain went to type. My point was that it was pretty clear that she was the chancellor of the university in Seattle.I don't know how you can have read that, and made this post:
She became Antioch's first female chancellor in 2005 and during her tenure the University underwent several major transitions, including its separation from Antioch College.
This clearly says that the university split after she became Chancellor, and in fact, this took place in 2008, long after Reade would've attended:
Antioch University Moves Forward After Separation From College
It was a year ago that Antioch University and Antioch College in Yellow Springs became two separate institutions. Antioch College Interim President,…www.wyso.org
It was a year ago that Antioch University and Antioch College in Yellow Springs became two separate institutions. While the college is making plans to reopen next fall, the university is also looking ahead to the future. But Murdoch says knowing about the past is a priority as well, and that the University has hired an historian to begin research.
Article posted SEP 8, 2010
I really appreciate this post, it helps dissipate the deliberate fog surrounding those context-less gifs and video clips.So I posted some thoughts on this last week, based on my personal experience working with Biden and his office:
What's most crazy for me is not the falsifying of documents and credentials- but purposefully going forward and seeking out the opportunity to be an expert witness in not just one-but MULTIPLE criminal trials. Its almost begging to get caught. The consequences are disastrous.
The very reason why people fight against the death penalty, and if not for DNA imagine how many people would still be in jail based of bogus "expert" testimony.That seems like a serious problem with the legal system. If an "expert" witness can go around lying like that, what makes them "expert" at all? And why are they only discredited after they're caught lying? Seems quite inefficient to me, but I don't know anything about the US' legal system so.
I mistyped, I meant 2007 and not 1997 -- I'm dyslexic and saw the 1997 in the article and that's where my brain went to type. My point was that it was pretty clear that she was the chancellor of the university in Seattle.
Yereeouch.
But the crux of the current issue is her falsifying her credentials in relation to being an expert witness, and being a legislative assistant who worked on the Violence Against Women Act was supposed to be a component of that.
New article by NYTimes:
Tara Reade Is Dropped as Client by a Leading #MeToo Lawyer (Published 2020)
The lawyer’s departure came after concerns over the expert witness credentials of Ms. Reade, who has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault.www.nytimes.com
This sounds really weird.Ms. Reade says she received her degree through the private assistance of the school's then-president, Tullisse Murdock. She says she never received a diploma or requested one since she was "fast-tracked" to law school.
So either Reade, Hamilton, or Murdock is lying. If the spokeswoman is lying, it'd be easy for Murdoch to call her out. So either Reade is lying or Murdoch is lying.But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade.
"But Ms. Hamilton, the Antioch spokeswoman, told The Times that it had spoken with Ms. Murdock, and that there was no such special arrangement with Ms. Reade."
From the NYT article
I am kind of in awe that she thought the New York Times would think a *partial transcript* equaled a a degree.
I'm saying that I mistake and you were correct in your assessment. Yes, you can only read the post I made, that's why I apologized for the confusion.Well, okay, but I can only read the post you made. And she was president of the seattle school, and Chancellor of the entire system (they have 4 branches, from what I remember reading.)
Kind of -- Jeff Winger passed the bar exam.True. And again as others have said-not to make light of this-but this is literally the plot for Community.
Oh I actually meant legislative assistant vs. staff assistant. Saying you were one when you were in fact another is materially misrepresenting your job.
This sounds really weird.
So either Reade, Hamilton, or Murdock os lying. If the spokeswoman is lying, it'd be easy for Murdoch to call her out. So either Reade is lying or Murdoch is lying.
I missed what happened but is this what led to the exodus from PoliEra?This story is what drove a lot of decent posters away from this website... and more and more evidence comes out thaf Reade may not be the most trust-worthy individual.
This sounds really weird.
So either Reade, Hamilton, or Murdock os lying. If the spokeswoman is lying, it'd be easy for Murdoch to call her out. So either Reade is lying or Murdoch is lying.
She's probably going to jail if this is true. Most people aren't dumb enough to commit jailable offenses by lying to legal minds and judges who deal with winning at all costs.That seems like a serious problem with the legal system. If an "expert" witness can go around lying like that, what makes them "expert" at all? And why are they only discredited after they're caught lying? Seems quite inefficient to me, but I don't know anything about the US' legal system so.
God, what happens if some of even all of those 20 cases get overturned because of this?
I missed what happened but is this what led to the exodus from PoliEra?
It seemed that anybody that refused to brandish Joe Biden as a convicted rapist was set upon pretty fiercely.
It's fucked up either way. Either innocent people went to prison partly because of her, or people who are actually guilty are now getting off the hook entirely because of her.God, what happens if some of even all of those 20 cases get overturned because of this?
I'm saying that I mistake and you were correct in your assessment. Yes, you can only read the post I made, that's why I apologized for the confusion.
I missed what happened but is this what led to the exodus from PoliEra?
It seemed that anybody that refused to brandish Joe Biden as a convicted rapist was set upon pretty fiercely.
It means I fucked up.My only real question in this is what does it mean to be fast tracked to law school?
My only real question in this is what does it mean to be fast tracked to law school?
This sounds really weird.
So either Reade, Hamilton, or Murdock os lying. If the spokeswoman is lying, it'd be easy for Murdoch to call her out. So either Reade is lying or Murdoch is lying.
I assume that charges will be brought against her and she'll be prosecuted for perjuring herself. Perjury usually isn't even an offense worthy of prosecution but this is a whole nother level and I assume there would be some interest in pursuing it if these cases are overturned.God, what happens if some of even all of those 20 cases get overturned because of this?
God, what happens if some of even all of those 20 cases get overturned because of this?
That's 100% bullshit. She's literally admitting to never getting a degree and instead claiming she has a secret one!