j-trư as likely that the insert was written with knowledge of the
Hill manuscript. Cooperman indicated that one of the reasons for
sending the keynote manuscripts to the guest editors was for them
to read the manuscripts in order to write an introduction for the
volume (Finding 83). It is suspect that Snitzer would take on
the task of writing a portion of an introduction for a
publication without knowing what had been written. Snitzer's
explanation to the contrary, in light of the evidence before us,
is not persuasive.
In summary, although Dr. Snitzer denied ever reading or
receiving the manuscript, based on the record, there is strong
circumstantial evidence supporting Hill's charge of derivation.
The Annual Review Office received Hill's transcript on 8
September 1992. Cooperman testified that for Volume 23 a copy of
each manuscript covering a keynote topic was sent to each guest
editor, Her testimony is unwavering and credible. Dr. Snitzer
wrote an insert for the introduction of Volume 23, describing
generally the subject matter covered by the Hill manuscript,
despite Dr. Snitzer's testimony that he never received or read
Hill's manuscript. Cooperman testified that manuscripts are sent
to each guest editor to be read in order to write an
introduction. It is simply not credible that Snitzer would
undertake writing a portion of an introduction to a compilation
of articles without reading the relevant articles. The Snitzer
54
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007