A Lawprof’s Head Turner (Update)

If there is anyone Stanford lawprof Michelle Dauber hates more than Judge Aaron Persky, it’s former Stanford swimmer convicted sex offender Brock Turner. Turner is appealing his conviction, as is his right.

Brock Turner, the former Stanford University student and champion swimmer who was found guilty in March 2016 of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on campus, is appealing his conviction.

A 172-page brief filed on Friday by Mr. Turner’s lawyer, Eric Multhaup, said Mr. Turner did not get a fair trial for several reasons, including the exclusion of testimony by character witnesses who spoke of his swimming career and his performance in school and attested to his honesty, the appeal said.

That’s a rather long brief, making the word “brief” seem somewhat incongruous. Whether it’s got merit or not has yet to be seen. The issues raised go to the conviction, whether Turner was denied due process and prevented from offering his defense. An appellate court will ultimately make a decision about it, as that’s the way appeals work.

And it’s making Dauber’s head explode.

She put some serious work into “correcting” those headlines, and that’s one of a great many twits attacking Turner, Persky and the media that doesn’t hate them nearly enough for Dauber’s taste.

At the time of sentence, there were many who saw the sentence as being surprisingly lenient. But others, like Dauber, were outraged. Would anything short of life plus cancer be enough? In the current atmosphere, even that probably wouldn’t have sufficed. Even people who wrote in support of Turner have had their lives destroyed by the Dauber-led mob.

It appears that this Stanford law professor has dedicated her existence to destroying this young man. This isn’t to say that Dauber isn’t entitled to be outraged by whatever she wants to be outraged about.

This isn’t to say that Dauber shouldn’t be able to express her opinion, right or wrong. But when a law prof dedicates herself to the destruction of one specific defendant, together with anyone connected to him, judge included, does it reach a point where she’s abusing her academic position in some sort of obsessed jihad?

Have Dauber and her ilk crossed a line of legitimate criticism to stalking, to obsession, to insane hatred and using every means available to try to deny Turner a fair appeal?

[Ed. Note: Dauber deleted the original twit, so it’s been replaced with  screen cap.*]

Song? Yes, the craziness has gone so far as to give birth to a song. It’s like a master’s class for psycho stalkers.

One might suspect that Dauber’s attention would have been diverted from Turner in light of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein, or maybe Al Franken, but no. Not even a little bit. She remains every bit as obsessed with Turner as ever, and persists in doing whatever she can to influence people to share her hatred.

Had this been some mere troll on the internets it would be one thing. But this is a law professor. And a law professor at Stanford, no less. What drives her to do this? It certainly seems to have gone well beyond any rational concern about an individual case, and deep into some dark, ugly hole of insanity. And I told her as much. She did not respond well.


This is very disturbing on many levels. But of greatest concern is that a law professor would dedicate herself to destroying a defendant, to doing whatever she can to impair his appeal, to attacking a well-regarded judge for his ruling (and thus “warn” other judges that a lenient sentence imposed on a defendant they hate will result in their ruination as well), and to using every resource at her disposal to assure that the lives of Brock Turner and everyone associated with him will be destroyed.

This isn’t rational behavior. This is some seriously sick behavior. And Michelle Dauber teaches law school. She and her mob can think the sentence imposed on Turner was too lenient all she wants, but her actions, as a lawprof, have reached, and surpassed, a level of obsession that should strike fear in every academic. This isn’t normal, sane behavior. This is your colleague. This is the person teaching law students. This is deeply disturbed.

*After being called out for her deplorable endorsement of violence against a young man by retired Santa Clara Judge LaDoris Cordell, Dauber deleted the twit and responded:

“Obviously, I do not endorse violence against Brock Turner or anyone else,” Dauber said. “I understood the song referenced in the tweet to be clearly satirical and not literal. I have deleted the tweet to avoid any distraction from our focus on holding Judge Persky accountable for his pattern of bias in favor of college athletes who assault women.”

Obviously?

35 comments on “A Lawprof’s Head Turner (Update)

  1. CLS

    This isn’t just deeply disturbed. It’s fucking horrifying.

    Out of curiosity I went to Dauber’s Twitter feed. The entire thing looks like a shrine a serial killer would build for the object of his or her affection.

    I can understand the laity getting upset over the Turner appeal. A law professor with this much venom over a defendant has no place teaching students the law.

    She needs help. Stanford’s administration needs to do something about this.

    1. SHG Post author

      A “shrine” is a good way to put it. You get the feeling she twits while drinking a nice Chianti and eating fava beans.

      1. CLS

        Now you’ve gone and done it. I can’t shake the image of Daubert eating dinner with a mock up of Turner’s head at the dinner table, scooping food out of the cranium and muttering “Fuck Brock Turner” in between twits.

    2. B. McLeod

      She didn’t “correct” any of the NBC or MSNBC headlines falsely reporting that Turner was appealing his “rape convictions.”

      And shame on you, Admiral, for accusing her of “teaching students.”

  2. stevie g

    Yes, it is Brock’s right to appeal. But given that he could receive a LONGER sentence, it may not be the right thing to do. What would you counsel? Quit while you’re ahead and sign up for the sex list? (Brock might be getting questionable advice from dad, and his attorneys who just want to make money. Nah, that would NEVER happen. LOL!)

    Also disturbing is that a Stanford law prof obviously has no clue as to defamation law. While it is clearly your opinion, it would be fun to explore whether or not she just might actually be a crazed stalker, since the truth of your statement is also an absolute defense.

  3. PBK

    I’m very concerned about the dubious ethics of this “law professor.” What is she doing, pre-judging ongoing litigation? Where is Stanford Law on this? Her mania reflects very poorly on their educational ability. She is attempting to interfere with the legal process. This seems like a person with an ax to grind, not a serious, legitimate scholar.

    1. SHG Post author

      Commenting on the merits of litigation shouldn’t be an issue, per se. Trying to interfere with judges by threats, on the other hand, is. But this goes beyond anything I’ve ever seen before, even with someone like Franks. How can Stanford trust her with any student who isn’t on her team? What can she be teaching students? Hell if I know.

    2. B. McLeod

      It is actually useful to the public for lawyers disinterested in a case to provide background and insights on what is happening with an appeal. A number of lawyers (including yours truly) have commented on obvious issues for appeal in this case. In particular, there are serious issues as to whether the evidence of record was sufficient to support the conviction for penetration (with a foreign object) of an unconscious woman. There are few real issues with the conviction for penetration (with a foreign object) of an intoxicated woman, so the potential for the defense to reverse on that count may be very limited, even though there may be problems with the overall fairness of the trial. Analysis of points such as these could help lay readers better appreciate what the appeals process is for, as well as what types of errors may rise to the level of reversible errors.

      However, what Dauber (who is not a lawyer) is and has been doing is not a legal analysis of any kind. Now, as during the trial, she is bent on her obsessively fanatical crusade to impose her socio-political dogma, and to demand that law and legal process be subordinated to the result she insists upon. In the course of this, she really does seem to have developed an irresistible fascination with Brock Turner, and I would not blame Stanford if they put her on sabbatical pending an evaluation of her mental health.

  4. Pedantic Grammar Police

    “Have Dauber and her ilk crossed a line of legitimate criticism to stalking, to obsession, to insane hatred and using every means available to try to deny Turner a fair appeal?”

    Of course they have. Stalking, obsession and insane hatred are required responses to someone who is literally Hitler. If you aren’t filled with insane hatred, then you are Hitler too, and you too must be insanely hated by all good people.

  5. phv3773

    The juxtaposition of this post with the previous one about Facebook’s AI is interesting. If Twitter had AI trained to detect stalking and obsession rather than suicidal ideation, would it flag Dauber or not? And should it?

    1. SHG Post author

      Unlike Dauber, I have the capacity to protect the rights of people with whom I disagee and to appreciate issues on a rational level. Not even Dauber deserved to be pinged for any perceived improper ideations by AI.

    2. CLS

      After reading this comment the curiosity bug struck me and I went to search for Michelle Dauber on Facebook before deleting my account permanently.

      Holy shit it’s worse than her Twitter feed. And it’s set to public, so everyone can see it.

      Dauber, in addition to her personal Facebook account which is littered with numerous Brock Turner stories, also moderates two group pages, “Recall Aaron Persky” and “Brock Turner For Prison.”

      It will be extremely interesting to see if the new AI does anything with Professor Dauber.

  6. Jim Tyre

    Thanks, Scott! Never having thought about it, I didn’t realize bible and libel rhyme. Good to know!

    In related news, a few days ago the appellate court rejected Judge Persky’s bid to stop the count on the petition to recall him. Because you’re so smart, I’m giving you only one guess as to who’s behind that effort.

  7. David

    Any students failing her class can now just post something not negative about Brock Turner and then claim her obsession is the reason for the bad grade. I wonder if it’s already happening that way anyway.

      1. B. McLeod

        I don’t think she’d much care for the song I would write. In the world of song titles, what rhymes with “The Coarse-Placed Ditch”?

          1. B. McLeod

            I was actually the principal lyricist and performing instrumentalist/vocalist for “Staci’s Panic Room,” and also several lesser-known works posted on the B. McLeod Soundcloud page.

    1. SHG Post author

      A personal vendetta? Not a cause célèbre to make an obscure, otherwise unaccomplished, lawprof into a bold-face name?

    2. Cynthia P Garrett

      Dauber did know the victim. She was either a family friend or a friend of one of Dauber’s children.

  8. Sonetka

    In my opinion, Dauber’s most interesting tweet is this one: https://twitter.com/mldauber/status/770629254048460800 (I archived it at http://archive.is/nBUv1 just in case she decides to delete it.) If you check the “To” line, it was sent to “[email protected]” How on earth was she able to receive hate mail on a server that doesn’t exist? Anyone sending mail to anyone at standford.edu would have the message bounce back immediately without the intended recipient’s ever seeing it. There is simply no way she received that message as it was sent, certainly not via gmail.

      1. Sonetka

        It’s impossible to say whether she invented the whole email, but the header at least was tinkered with. She could not have received it in the state she presents it. It’s interesting that she underlines the sender’s email address in red, essentially inviting her readers to blast him on her behalf. I wonder if any of them did email “Andrew Crawford”, and if he ever responded?

        1. B. McLeod

          Old closing argument hypothetical, when you find a piece of rancid meat in your stew, do you try to pick through and eat the rest of it, or toss it all? Clear indication that it was falsified in part renders the entire email incredible.

Comments are closed.