According to alleged professor of law Ann Althouse, Bill Lueders, who broke the story Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck with both hands, Governor Scott Walker's momentous budget-singing ceremony "was overshadowed by the gigantic turd Lueders felt moved to drop at exactly that moment." Althouse seems hell-bent on discrediting Lueders's reporting, despite the fact Justice Bradley herself has since affirmed it.
Most rational actors would reverse course at that point.
Perhaps Althouse is too demure to outright call Justice Bradley a liar and instead has been busying herself with attempting to discredit Lueders's confirmed reporting and failing rather spectacularly at that project.*
The alleged law professor's scatological metaphor is especially entertaining when one recalls Prosser's election-time fauxtrage at coming upon a reader post at Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg's Facebook, which read, "Stop the turd, vote Kloppenburg."
"Now, am I the turd?," Justice Prosser had actually inquired.
Apparently so, albeit not Althouse's "gigantic turd," as Althouse also assures us Justice Bradley is "significantly larger" than Justice Prosser.
I've heard students at the University of Wisconsin Law School go out of their way to avoid enrolling in Althouse's classes. That's not surprising.
* WPRI's Christian Schneider lauds Althouse for doing "yeoman's work."
eta 01: Fortunately for the rest of us Ann Althouse is not in charge of the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Justice Bradley's allegations may constitute a felony charge. They need to be taken seriously, contra the alleged professor of law's wild and frivolously idiotic speculations.
eta 02: As they are taken by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.
As mentioned here previously, the Supreme Court is charged with overseeing the ethical behavior and education of the State's attorneys, an authority that is becoming less and less possible to take seriously.
And I don't believe it was ever possible to take Ann Althouse seriously.
June 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Speaking of procedure, that's some unique technique deployed by Chief Tubbs.
He says he consulted, but it doesn't say he solicited or received advice. It seems to me the sheriff is the appropriate authority, rather than the chief of police.
MJS: "It was not immediately clear why Tubbs would consult with the court on who should investigate the matter." But how come the MJS doesn't quote Tubbs as saying he consulted with the court on that question? Pretty bizarre and unsupported editorializing if you ask me.
I'm more concerned with fact that investigation begins three weeks after incident and three days after explosive news report. I hope he at least took statements that evening.
Strange Times In Casablanca indeed.
Seriously? I'm not going to defend Althouse, who is a nut, but obviously Lueders did a woefully insufficient job of investigative reporting. He ran the story far to soon, without exploring other possible accounts of the incident.
I don't know who the three sources are, but I have no doubt that they are clerks, interns or judicial assistants of Bradley or the Chief. The original story was incredibly sparse in detail, and the circumstances as they were
described were totally implausible.
Prosser just flew off the handle and choked Bradley when she asked him to leave? Did anybody jump in to intervene? Didn't she say anything else in between to provoke it? Bradley clearly wasn't the one to leak the story in the first place, so obviously she didn't want the story run any more than Prosser did.
I think it is pretty obvious that the truth is somewhere between the two stories being put forth, but it should be obvious to anybody that the original story did not make sense.
I don't know if it was an intentional attempt to get one side of the story out first, or journalistic incompetence, but, as much as I hate to say it, Althouse was right on Lueders.
Althouse has got nothing on Lueders. She's simply attacking the messenger through fevered speculation because she doesn't care for the message. Who are the lone dissenters who told Journal Communications, Inc. that Justice Bradley's neck just got in the way of Prosser's hands, is what I'd like to know. And why isn't Althouse concerned about their "unsourced" claims? Bradley's on the record.
I don't care what Althouse does or does not think about the unsourced claims from both sides. But, the fact is, it is better to have anonymous sources giving both sides to the story than to have anonymous sources giving only one side of the story.
And why doesn't Althouse have anything on Lueders? Do you seriously think that, to the extent the original story gave any facts, they were plausible in the least? I haven't seen anything that suggests the original story wasn't incredibly deficient in relevant details. It took the Journal Sentinel all of half a day to run a story filling in at least some of the details.
No, I don't have a problem with Lueders's reporting and obviously I know he's an advocate. It's not that Althouse is wrong to think or type in her typically aimless manner about the circumstances, it's that her own harebrained conclusions are 500 times less plausible than those even implied by Lueders. Among those sources unnamed by Lueders and unearthed by the MJS, by the way, was Justice Bradley herself. That alone tells me Lueders & Co. felt they were on firm enough ground to publish. We'll agree to disagree. You know I've defended Prosser several times in the past (although never for his attacks on other justices).
Fair enough. Although, for the record, I'm not going to be defending Prosser here. I think what he did was probably criminal and was, at the very best, incredibly stupid. I think, however, that the ultimate outcome of this investigation will be a finding that both of them acted inappropriately. In fact, I'm not even so sure that Bradley's statement denies that she took some of physical action towards him; it just seems to deny that the choking was some kind of defensive action.
I appreciate your comments and you've always struck me -- no pun intended -- as uniquely fair minded in this partisan morass. By the way I agree there are likely clerks/assistants among the sources (look: I just created a new job classification by forward slash).
Lueders did a woefully insufficient job of investigative reporting
It's certainly open for criticism - some of the j-school gurus on twitter are gunning for him. But this is how the process usually plays out.
It would be wonderful if all the fruit would fall before the tree is shaken. There's no way in hell the Prosser perspectivalists would've come forward before Lueder's story. And as it stands now, the only source on the record is confirming the central fact Lueder's intial account: that Prosser's hands were around her neck.
What's troubling it that this story went untold for almost three weeks, that apparently the principles in the incident were ok with that, and that apparently the attention is what finally got the law enforcement ball rolling. That would've been unthinkable 15 years ago, when the last embers of a competitive news environment were dying out.
I do recall that in Lueders's original posting that Prosser declined to comment, even after the particulars were read to him.
Prosser was not obliged to comment, or even take the call, but gave up a chance to deny the allegation or to frame and define the circumstances, etc.
Yep they contacted every member of the court.
illusory tenant said...
It's not that Althouse is wrong to think or type in her typically aimless manner about the circumstances, it's that her own harebrained conclusions are 500 times less plausible than those even implied by Lueders.
Newsflash: Bill Lueders got tooled. And illusory tenant is - allegedly - his willing bitch.
OP: "Bill Lueders, who broke the story Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck with both hands ... "
MJS: "Prosser told a detective he remembered 'feeling the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley's neck in his hands.' ... 'What does any self-respecting man do when suddenly that man finds that his hands, or part of his hands are on a woman's neck? Get them off the neck as soon as possible.'"
You were saying, Meade?
Meade is Althouse's squeeze, aina?
illusory tenant said...
"You were saying, Meade?"
I'd say - scroll up, illusory tenant. You were somewhat schooled by Pyrrho two months ago.
I disagree with Pyrrho, who has been a welcome and thoughtful commenter here for some time, particularly when the subject of Justice Prosser arises. But if you want to keep attacking Lueders for no reason, that's obviously your (meritless) prerogative. The fact of the matter is Lueders reported on an altercation in Justice Bradley's chambers that has been substantially corroborated by the Dane County Sheriff's Office investigation. Specifically, Lueders reported sources alleging Justice Prosser put his hands around Justice Bradley's neck, and none other than Justice Prosser himself copped to doing just that.
"Specifically, Lueders reported sources alleging Justice Prosser put his hands around Justice Bradley's neck[...]"
I notice you've altered the allegation from your June 27 post. Slick.
Btw, Bill Lueders did a similar thing with his original June 25 report titled Supreme Court spat got physical. Actually, what Lueders did was even more dishonest - he altered his original post itself.
I altered nothing and neither did Lueders. Lueders published an addendum after Journal-Sentinel reporters did some following up. Your goalposts are rapidly disappearing beyond the horizon.
On June 27 you posted, "[...]the story Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck with both hands[...]"
Your comment above alters the allegation to "Justice Prosser put his hands around Justice Bradley's neck."
As I noted, slick.
The goalposts have remained exactly in place. The only things moving have been your ineffectual kicks at an overinflated imaginary ball.
"Bill Lueders ... broke the story Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck with both hands," is what I posted. Please note the attribution. Lueders used -- and uses, contrary to your claim of "altering" his story -- the word "grabbed." Grabbed and seized are effectively synonyms.
Justice Prosser says he "suddenly" found his hands (plural) "on a woman's neck," and remembered "feeling the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley's neck in his hands" (again, plural: two hands, one opposite the other, not two hands on the same side of the neck, as far as I can tell).
What are you contending, Meade, that Justice Prosser placed his hands around Justice Bradley's neck carefully and gingerly? Because that is certainly not what the collection of testimony gathered by the Dane County Sheriff's Office indicates. Unless you have some hitherto unknown or uncollected testimony you'd like to share.
"(again, plural: two hands, one opposite the other, not two hands on the same side of the neck, as far as I can tell)."
As far as you can tell, illusory tenant, one hand was not, in fact, opposite the other.
Keep kicking at that overinflated imaginary ball of yours, pal. The goalposts are right there. And if your legs get tired, maybe think about releasing some heart-shaped red balloons. Just to, you know, keep your spirits up.
"We asked Justice Prosser to describe how his hands came to touch her neck. Justice Prosser said while he was making the comment to the Chief Justice about having lost confidence in her leadership, his upper arms were down and parallel to his body, but his elbows were bent at a 90 degree angle so that his forearms were parallel to the ground and his hands were partially extended outwards. Justice Prosser said he told this same story to Chief Tubbs and Margaret Brady." - Page 40 of 70.
Seriously, "pal," have you even read this thing?
Every word, buddy.
I see. Then thanks for affirming that your obtuseness is deliberate and that "trolling" is the appropriate characterization of your activities.
Good day sir!
his elbows were bent at a 90 degree angle so that his forearms were parallel to the ground and his hands were partially extended outwards
I'm a bit confused. Is this supposed to be evidence of choking? (If so, is Prosser a giant or is Bradley a midget? Hmm... or perhaps both?)
No, it's evidence of "how his hands came to touch her neck," which is what Prosser was asked to describe.
I'll rephrase.
his elbows were bent at a 90 degree angle so that his forearms were parallel to the ground and his hands were partially extended outwards
I'm a bit confused. Is this supposed to explain how his hand (and/or hands) touched her neck? (If so, is Prosser a giant or is Bradley a midget? Hmm... or perhaps both?)
See 2:14 PM. Or Page 40. Or pp. 1-70. And it's "hands."
You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Illusory Tenant.
is Prosser a giant or is Bradley a midget? .
"Forearms parallel to the ground, elbows bent 90º" implies nothing about the position of the upper arms, since the elbows can be flared outwards. (You are apparently thinking upper arms must be at the sides, pointing at the ground.)
I can get my hands above my head with FPTTG,EB90º.
"Forearms parallel to the ground, elbows bent 90º" implies nothing about the position of the upper arms, since the elbows can be flared outwards.
One more time:
"Justice Prosser said ... his upper arms were down and parallel to his body ... " -- p. 40 of 70
After you get all the arm angles straighten out, mr. tenant, when you get a chance - report to us on what your dictionary says about the terms "seized" and "put around" will you?
Thanks in advance.
Post a Comment