Ah yes, the classic “no university formally convicted him, therefore the whole thing vanishes in a puff of smoke” defence. True, Liverpool John Moores looked at it and decided to call more than a hundred near-identical passages “honest and reasonable error.” Cambridge started an investigation and then, conveniently, never finished it. So if your standard of truth is “has a university stamped ‘Guilty’ on an official piece of paper?”, then congratulations: you’re technically correct. Everyone else who can read two documents side by side noticed the extensive copying, the mirrored structure, and even the odd error that somehow migrated from one thesis to the other. But sure, until a university committee is brave enough to say the quiet part out loud, we’re all just supposed to pretend the text doesn’t look like it was run through a photocopier with the lights dimmed. Absence of a formal guilty verdict is not the same thing as absence of evidence. It’s just absence of institutional spine!
Create an account or sign in to comment