Professor Boaz Sangero published a book on SSRN called Safety from False Convictions, arguing that: ”all rights reserved to the author”. Sangero even mentioned the book in a TV interview. Allow me to tell you the truth behind that book.
Sangero and I had a contract for a co-authored book in English, with Oxford University Press (OUP), concerning safety in criminal law. While working together on the book, with most of the working being done, I found out that Sangero published a book in Hebrew. In that book, he duplicated, as he deemed fit, papers that we wrote together while changing the plural form to the singular form, allegedly taking all the credit for himself. Things have come to that that he presented – without quotation marks - in the Hebrew book content from a paper I wrote without him. Therefore, there can be no doubt that he did not conceive and created that content.
Publishing the Hebrew book opened a major rift between us.
Sangero attempted to publish the English book on his name alone. He almost succeeded. The book was already posted for pre-sale in leading bookstores worldwide, including in the US, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, the UK, Bulgaria, Poland and more. Just as he did in the Hebrew book, already on the book cover, he altered a sentence from an original paper from the plural to the singular form. This way, he would earn all the credit. But then, the OUP editors have learned that I never gave Sangero permission to publish the book on his name alone. From that moment onwards, they were a fort of integrity. They made it clear to Sangero and his attorney, over and over again, that he must reach consents with me; otherwise the book will not be published. At a certain point, Sangero offered to add my name on the cover as an author. Well, thank you, really!
At the end of the day, OUP sent us both a letter of contract termination. The book was not published. Sangero has earned the “honor” of having his alleged book, already set for pre-sale with OUP, being terminated. Few people have had this “honor”.
Sangero again did not quit, and published the book on his page on SSRN website. He even mentioned it in the interview Geula Even held with him on TV.
Those reading the book are convinced that they are reading Sangero’s book. They have no idea of the joint planning of the book; the co-authored table of content; the joint book contract. They cannot tell the book’s introduction is mostly taken from the co-authored book proposal; that the book has content from a paper and draft I wrote without Sangero in Hebrew and that this content is presented without quotation marks. Those reading the book have no clue that we exchanged plenty of material between us for writing the book, and that the majority of a draft for the entire book was written by both of us. I would note that the book has original sections, created by Sangero alone. But these sections are in low level, misguided and lack a scientific/academic/safety value. The above does not conclude my arguments against the book Sangero presents in SSRN as his own.
I ask that you refer to the original papers and not to this book.
Proposal to Reverse the View of a Confession: From Key Evidence Requiring Corroboration to Corroboration for Key Evidence
From a Plane Crash to the Conviction of an Innocent Person: Why Forensic Science Evidence Should Be Inadmissible Unless It Has Been Developed as a Safety-Critical System
Why a Conviction Should not be Based on A Single Piece of Evidence: A Proposal for Reform
Halpert and Pardess paper Hebrow
Well done, my friend
השבמחקWell done, my friend
השבמחק