From our Ward Churchill Must Be Tom Sawyer 'Cause He Gets So Many People To Whitewash For Him department: Over at The Valve, Marc Bousquet practices a little Churchillian spin on The Perfesser's upcoming court case.
Excerpt:

The “research misconduct” charge is that Churchill didn’t provide enough evidence relating to his account of the origins of a 19th century smallpox epidemic. Whether or not one agrees with Churchill’s account, I found in reading the investigators’ report that I had to share Cheyfitz’s opinion that “what is properly an academic debate about the relationship of Native peoples to United States history was turned into an indictment.... The research misconduct charges disappear when you start looking at them closely.”

The use of the “research misconduct” charges to discredit Churchill should be particularly troubling to all of us--as Churchill supporters made clear by promptly filing “research misconduct” charges against the investigating committee, using the same standards for “misconduct” that they employed against him (and which future observers may well find more convincing!)

Update: DrunkaSuspect has more commentary, including a scathing comment (and challenge) from Churchill critic (and man about town!) Professor Thomas Brown.

Churchill’s defenses all crumble to dust under close examination. Have a look at the four scholarly articles that accuse Churchill of research misconduct: two by John LaVelle in Wicazo Sa Review, and two by me in Plagiary. All four are readable online.

Neither Churchill nor any of his defenders have published a response to these accusations. Why? Because LaVelle and I have already eviscerated the various excuses, including the ones that Bousquet has advanced in this blog.

[...]

I challenge any of Churchill’s defenders to debate either in person or in the pages of Plagiary, but I doubt any will take me up on this offer. The more you learn about Churchill, the more obvious it is that he is guilty of serious misconduct.