I would agree that the court documents were significant. I particularly thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of fuel and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture , known by only 4 individuals, was deterministic.
>From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted: “During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made public, where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process successfully. We also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at such replications. Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of those replications, after which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat, even before the [one-year 1MW] test started in Doral [Miami], at a time when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.” I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM To: email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Hi Bob, I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the contents of the lawsuit docket. No need to postulate the eating of crow, except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome of the lawsuit. Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any particular outcome. So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in their impressions. Regards, Eric On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi claque. Bob Cook From: Che<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM To: email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now (again), if it hasn't. Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority<https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/> The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for. Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and walk away. Is that it, or close enuff..?