He claimed in the press that the class he was offering was a serious academic critique of creationism - but he was at the same time emailing friends and colleagues about how he was offering the class just to get a rise out of he people he hated.
That's pretty obvious dishonesty and the college recognized it and cashiered him for it.
I spent some time checking it out, and I found no major problems with it.
(1) He claims that he just happened to be taking a long predawn drive to clear his head, that someone was tailgating him, that he stopped and got out of his car and they stopped too and hit him. He couldn't describe the vehicle. Or the assailants. Or the metal object he was hit with. Or where he was when the alleged assault took place. Or even the hour when it took place. Literally no useful details of any kind.
(2) Even though he claimed to have been beaten by two large guys wielding some kind of a metal object, his students who saw him in class six hours later said he looked fine.
(3) The alleged assault occurred at precisely the right time for him to obscure his forced resignation as chair of his department due to his unethical behavior.
(4) He is not the first professor to manufacture a fake "hate crime" to deflect criticism.
Those are all salient - but I doubt you'll allow such inconvenient facts to pierce your steadfast faith in known liar Paul Mirecki.
There is no possible way you could know this, unless you're in the Lawrence Police Department.
A police spokesperson said, after the department interviewed Mirecki, that they did not have much to go on. If they had been given valuable leads, they probably wouldn't have announced that they had effectively no leads.
It is likely, therefore you just made it up. And you call Mirecki a liar?
Nice try. So you are now alleging that the police were given valuable leads by this joker, but in some kind of conspiracy they kept this valuable information hushed up and refused to act on it?
It's 'vicious and unethical' to make fun of one's own religion?
Paul Mirecki was not making fun of the religion of Paul Mirecki worship - he was making fun of Christianity.
But this mockery was not what was vicious or unethical.
What was vicious and unethical was his use of his classroom to advance his personal political agenda while lying to the school administration and the student body about his intentions.
Police have dropped it. I doubt they tried very hard.
Ah, another faith statement, I see.
What exactly are the police supposed to do with nothing?
According to what I'll loosely call your 'logic', Jimmy Hoffa killed himself.
You shouldn't criticize anyone else's logic when you're busy comparing apples and bowling balls.
The Hoffa disappearance became a cold case after it was determined that there was no living witness to Hoffa's murder except his murderers. Certainly no witness ever came forward and the best the cops could do was establish his whereabouts on the morning of his disappearance. There were no witnesses, no physical evidence and nothing even approaching a timeline. Hoffa got in the car that morning and after that, nothing.
Meanwhile, Mirecki is a witness who is alive and well, who claims to simultaneously be a piece of physical evidence from the crime scene, and who is willing to discuss anything but specific details.
Not that I'm saying it was unwise of Mirecki not to give any checkable facts at all when he was filing a false report. If you avoid giving any specifics it's much harder to prove it's a false report in a court of law and Mirecki certainly learned how important it was to cover his tracks after those emails were disclosed.
I'll point out that if you are a professor, you should be appalled by Mirecki's ethical breaches as a matter of principle.
The two are not mutually exclusionary; and if this is your grounds for calling him a liar, you don't have a leg to stand on.
He claims that he just happened to be taking a long predawn drive to clear his head, that someone was tailgating him, that he stopped and got out of his car and they stopped too and hit him. He couldn't describe the vehicle. Or the assailants. Or the metal object he was hit with. Or where he was when the alleged assault took place. Or even the hour when it took place. Literally no useful details of any kind.
Most of this is false. He described the vehicle as a pick up. He described what one of the men was wearing. He said he was beaten with fists, and possibly a metal object. He was unsure only about which of two section roads he was beaten on, and he reported the time.
The alleged assault occurred at precisely the right time for him to obscure his forced resignation as chair of his department due to his unethical behavior.
He was forced to resign after the beating, not before.
He is not the first professor to manufacture a fake "hate crime" to deflect criticism.
Oh, because one 'professor' manufactured a hate crime, any other report of same from any other faculty member forever must be false.
You're calling Mirecki a liar, but in fact almost everything you wrote above is false. So I guess at least we've identified one liar.
Paul Mirecki was not making fun of the religion of Paul Mirecki worship - he was making fun of Christianity
He was brought up Catholic. He was making fun of Catholicism. I do it too. Deal with it, and stop ranting.