Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You would have to show intent and various legal proof that I do not >> understand. >> > ***If you don't understand it then you're just as bad as these people you > rail against for not reading the Penon report. > I don't claim to understand the legal aspects of this! I never said I understand them. I cannot judge whether Rossi would have won or lost the lawsuit. That's why I am glad it was called off. I am ONLY judging the issues from the scientific point of view. > It is simple reasoning to proceed from "preponderance of evidence" > burden of proof having failed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" obviously > failing. > I wouldn't know about that. I cannot judge. I have seen lawsuits that went terribly wrong and deviated from scientific standards. Experienced lawyers told me that sometimes people such as Rossi bamboozle juries. The whole business does not sound "simple" to me. From a scientific point of view, the evidence was 10 light years "beyond a reasonable doubt," but whether that same standard applies to legal proceedings and court cases I cannot say. > To see the whole thing in reverse, just look at OJ Simpson. The > authorities failed to prove he murdered 2 people even with extraordinarily > strong DNA jklkjevidence, but the civil suit found him to be guilty of > causing their deaths. > Obviously he was guilty. This goes to show the legal system and the courts are not always rational or scientific. Examples like this are why I worried about a jury giving Rossi the money. > ***Based on your reaction, you have succumbed to the emotion surrounding > this case. > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes. I did not even read all the stuff about Rossi pretending to have a company and negotiating with himself. It is a laugh and a half and it shows he is a criminal, but I didn't bother reading it. Other people quoted it. I don't care about Rossi's lies other than the technical ones. > If all that stuff is so provably fraudulent then IH would have moved > forward. It is NOT provable. > It is provable if you understand elementary thermdynamics and grade school level science. Read Smith if you want to see what I mean. IH's decision not to move forward might have been based on factors unrelated to the science. As I said, maybe they found out that Rossi is broke. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Maybe they feared another jury like the O.J. Simpson one. Who knows? I do not have a clue what happened. Frankly, it is none of my business and I don't care. The only thing that bothers me is that Rossi will now go out and swindle a new group of people. I have heard he has already started to do this, in Sweden. At least his next intended victims have the court docket to warn them off. - Jed
