Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
But I think it would be ill-advised to put on blinders to all evidence because of it. Don't just take in the evidence that appears damaging to Rossi. I would encourage you to take in all of the evidence.
IHFB,
Could you please point out this evidence you think we should consider (please not those damn pipes again
), and also how said evidence would justify Rossi's destroying equipment, deleting emails, or JMP?BTW, you seemed upset the jury will hear of the JMP ruse.
-
Shane,
I understand that the JMP ruse is the go-to now for anti-Rossites. It is sensational. Rossi's admitting of the scheme under oath is a blockbuster. The jury will eat it up. I get it.
But I think it would be ill-advised to put on blinders to all evidence because of it. Don't just take in the evidence that appears damaging to Rossi. I would encourage you to take in all of the evidence.
Always keep in mind that Rossi vs Darden (this thread) is about the law suit Rossi brought against Darden. About Rossi attacking Darden. It is not about if LENR is real. It only take one item of evidence favorable to the defense to let the defendant (Darden ) go and it only take one juror to think there is a lack of evidence or a questionable item for IH to win.
It seems that you spend all your time trying to defend Rossi and nothing offered as proof of guilt by Darden.
-
I do think it's worth being cagey about the outcome of the court case, even if one is fairly settled in one's opinion of the matter. Court cases can go in unexpected directions.
-
From 262-07, sounds like IH did not have any real talent on board until Murray was hired. Vaughn is talking about the VT period here, when he says Dameron is older, smart, but:
-
It sounds like IH are going to go after the 10M as well. The test it was based on did not have the level of energy agreed to and not the number of "engines" and it was stopped before the time required.
-
Quote
But I think it would be ill-advised to put on blinders to all evidence because of it. Don't just take in the evidence that appears damaging to Rossi. I would encourage you to take in all of the evidence.
It isn't really appropriate to assess evidence in quantitative terms, but if one were to compare the amount of evidence damaging to Rossi with what is favorable to him, the imbalance would be staggering. Of course, to our oh-so-neutral colleague IHFanboy, what constitutes "evidence" in favor of Rossi is almost entirely far-fetched speculation based on the reading of tea leaves, flights of imagination with respect to blurry photographs, and the deliberate suspension of most of the laws of physics.
-
In a civil trial it's supposed to be the "preponderance of evidence" that determines the outcome. That means 51% takes it. But how do you account for lack of evidence (no pictures etc) or even spoliation? For me it doesn't look very good for Rossi and after you factor in this it's even worse.
-
In 262-07, Vaughn throws just about everyone under the bus, including his own Dameron, Dewey, and DRV. His defense is basically that everyone involved was clueless. Then he gets a little obstinate with the questioning attorney:
p. 80
·2· · · ·Q.· · Well, you said -- you said two things, that
·3· ·Dr. Rossi was manipulating the test.· How?
·4· · · ·A.· · I said -- could you read back what I said?
·5· · · ·Q.· · Go ahead and answer the question.
·6· · · · · · ·Do you have any reason to believe that Dr. Rossi
·7· ·was manipulating the test?
·8· · · ·A.· · Don't I have the right to have her read back what
·9· ·I said.
10· · · ·Q.· · No, you don't.
11· · · ·A.· · Okay.
12· · · · · · ·MR. BELL:· Yes, you do.
13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Could you read it back?
14· ·BY MR. ANNESSER:
15· · · ·Q.· · Go ahead, sir.· I'm asking you a question.· You
16· ·have to answer my question.
17· · · ·A.· · I have to answer your question.· I'll wait and
18· ·maybe you can read what I said after you're done answering
19· ·his question.
He then reiterates that he believes the original validation test was being manipulated by Rossi but isn't sure how. That seems to be a general theme: we have a hunch Rossi is committing fraud, but we just can't seem to figure out his trick. Dewey has expressed similar sentiments here.
-
In a civil trial it's supposed to be the "preponderance of evidence" that determines the outcome. That means 51% takes it. But how do you account for lack of evidence (no pictures etc) or even spoliation? For me it doesn't look very good for Rossi and after you factor in this it's even worse.
Yes, it sure looks like IH had put up more evidence in defense that Rossi has in his attacks against IH.
Most of what Rossi has presented were attacks on IH's defense issue and almost none on proving their primary positions. If just one or two items of Rossi's claims are found to be discarded by spoliation then it seems to me that it will be all over for Rossi.
Preponderance- yes. Not only that remember that Rossi chose the Fed. court system which requires a unanimous verdict. Just one juror has to think that 50.001 % of the evidence looks good for IH.
I am so looking forward to Thurs. (spoliation hearing)
-
IHFB - They may have been clueless early on, but that does not give Rossi the right to run a scam. I think they have awoken and will fight to the end. Rossi made a mistake when he turned it personal against Darden and Vaughn. Darden will not easily "roll over".
-
Things have changed? Wilson was president of Princeton in 1902. Fleischmann's career began in the 1940s. There are many accounts of vicious academic politics in Newton's day.
I am sure there have always been convivial academic departments as well.
And I got banned for suggesting repeatedly that many of the opinions here, including yours Jed, were biased along lines of financial special interest, professional jealousy and hubris. I believe this explains to a large degree why F and P were more or less driven out of town following the original 1989 breakthrough. I believe that kind of behavior permeates all facets of our lives and the scientific community is far from immune to it. It is also my opinion that is why Rossi is like he is to a large degree. He has learned the hard way how cut throat and unfair things can be and has become both defensive, and too aggressive with perhaps ill advised counter measures as a result. To a large degree your scientific community has made him who he is, but who he is now may just give him the brass to prevail where others have succumbed to the pressure.
-
The validation test is still an open question : IH has challenged it only on nit-picking grounds ... they were tricked into running only 18 reactors (a mere 1.5 MWH) , 30-minutes shy of 24 hours, and the flowmeter on the input, not the output. ( If there were no leaks, and the tank didn't need replenishing, doesn't seem to be a problem ... ).
-
He has learned the hard way how cut throat and unfair things can be and has become both defensive, and too aggressive with perhaps ill advised counter measures as a result. To a large degree your scientific community has made him who he is, but who he is now may just give him the brass to prevail where others have succumbed to the pressure.
Oh give me a break. That is so lame.
-
IHFB,
You make it sound like this is some heated debate over something nuanced, but what we know already shows it to be nothing of the sort. Nothing nuanced, weighted, or flavored about it...Rossi made up a fake company, dismantled equipment and lied on multiple occasions, all to which he tacitly admits to doing in his own testimony. So are we supposed to sugar coat that, so as not to ruffle feathers?
It is as if we have a photo of Rossi over the body, bloody knife in hand, and you want us to consider that the photo does not show him actually stabbing the victim, or that perhaps the victim was not such a good person either.
No, nothing nuanced, weighted or flavored at all--no, not in million years. Can you even hear yourself speak?
-
IHFB - They may have been clueless early on, but that does not give Rossi the right to run a scam. I think they have awoken and will fight to the end. Rossi made a mistake when he turned it personal against Darden and Vaughn. Darden will not easily "roll over".
No, but he may be knocked over in the end. I think IH still don't have a clue.
-
Oh give me a break. That is so lame.
What you say only strengthens my case. Rossi has been screwed over ever since the early days. Most would have succumbed by now, but it has only made Rossi more aggressive. Reminds me a little of the Trump election and all the pundits saying it wasn't possible for him to win.
-
Strengthens what I said about you too...lame, just lame.
-
Alan F - yes,
but they are countering Rossi since he declared war on them. It may be nit picky but it seem like the Judge is a stickler for letter of the law and 23 hr 30 min is not what was agreed to.
If you were 4 points behind playing football and you got to the 1 yard line in the final minute would you think you won because you were so close? Would the bookie pay as though you won?
And take a look at Dewey's email in this latest batch (262-4) #3 pressure readings on inlet and outlet.... flows over a range of flow temperatures.... things that look like they were not done.
We may look at it as trying to see if there is an LENR effect but to the courts it is if Rossi did what was agreed to and did not misrepresent anything to achieve gain (that is what fraud is). It is about sticking strictly to what is written and representing things correctly so that the one paying is not mislead.
Again, IH may have been clueless but working with naïve innocent people is not a legal excuse for misrepresentation or fraud.
-
Again, IH may have been clueless but working with naïve innocent people is not a legal excuse for misrepresentation or fraud.
I actually don't think IH were clueless. I think they are now claiming that everyone was clueless as a ramshackle defense. The only cluelessness that I've observed is when they hired the wrong experts (who were clueless with respect to LENR) and had no choice but to believe them.
