Your argument has some merit: asking lay people to judge science issues is difficult. All you need is two experts apparently saying opposite things and they go on who has the best haircut / says their bit in the most assured way.
It is difficult for any engineer to lie in Court, or to sound honest supporting something they know is wrong. So, for example, when Wong is challenged on his air speed and tube diameter independent "heat transfer coefficient" which he references from many sources, and asked whether in the light of more accurate calculations it could possibly be correct, he will crumble. The matter at issue is clear: single one-size-fits-all coefficient versus more accurate calculator and a lay Jury can follow it well enough. I'm less sure about the rest of the technical evidence where as we see here it could get sticky. OTOH Rossi has no other experts on his side! Why do you think that is?
Putting the technical evidence to one side, I think IH has a very strong case, for the reasons you carefully avoid which will however convince a lay Jury.
Rossi misdirects, and has misdirected this charade from the start lying about the failure of his previous Hydrofusion test (compare Mats' account with Rossi's e-mail to IH) and then again, repeatedly with a web of subterfuge, about the identity of the customer. That makes the worth of a RossiSays about zero, and Rossi's case depends on Rossi Says:
- Vanishing heat exchanger (Wong) - all RossiSays
- Excuses about customer - RossiSays
- Penon Data - hopelessly contaminated with RossiMakesTheEquipment and RossiSendsTheResults
- Rossi thought this was the GPT and is a hard-working inventor deceived by IH - RossiSays
- ECat works - RossiSays (there is no supporting evidence from a cross-examinable person on this - the Lugano authors don't seem to want to be expert witnesses)
Then there is the missing evidence. Read 299 from the Court Docket:
- Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed
- Fabiani - selectively destroys raw data and e-mails after being told it would lead to legal action if he did
None of this stuff is technical, and while you can take select points in a Rossiesque style that appear positive for Rossi, the whole thing examined carefully is damning. Have you done this? I get the impression from your posts that you are believing the Rossiesque explanations without joining the dots. Individual jurors may, like you, not do this, but a whole Jury in deliberations almost certainly will.
Both sides make their points in the MSJs and the Spoliation in limine documents. See here and search summary or limine - Abd's site lets you locate individual documents by title easily. Remember that for each document there may be 3 or 6 versions from the various sides. The difference is that Annesser's points in service of Rossi nearly all rely on bizaare and often Rossieque interpretation with no hard evidence.
The points above (to take a sample that we can see) all rely on hard evidence.
I'd like to understand how you process this. I don't expect you to agree with me on the technical stuff - which we both agree may not be relevant to a Jury anyway - but a close reading of the documents shows the above to me. Which documents, read in context, do you think support an alternate view? For example, read the Annesser MSJ, or the 3rd Party in limine arguments. They sound very convincing, but when compared with the other side's counter-arguments they largely crumble because their validity depends on unsupported interpretation - and often on Rossiesque misinterpretation contradicted by context. They make sense only if you ignore other evidence. A good example of this is Rossi's: "I told IH I was the customer" as examined above, or the false claims of secrecy preventing IH from inspecting the non-existing customer-side equipment.
PS - you note Jed's financial and personal links with IH - such as they are - Jed may wish to correct you. Do you also acknowledge E48's stronger financial and personal links with Rossi?
As a Real Estate Broker/developer I have been involved in a number civil suits, some involving my employees and some involving me directly. One of the things I noticed early on was that expert witnesses, professional or otherwise, will get up in front of a Jury and say just about anything their asked to, if the money is right. Oh sure, they will parse words and dance around the facts in such a way as to make it seem like they're being honest, but the truth is they are being paid to convey a message and the best ones are pretty good at it. Despite this, in virtually every case that involved an "expert witness" a good attorney could almost always expose their special interest in getting paid well, which would pretty much destroy their credibility no matter which side they were testifying for. The fact is that when you pay someone a bunch of money to testify you could just as well be paying them to lie. I had the same excellent attorney in nearly every case and each time he ended up talking me out of using an expert witness. According to him one of the first things they teach in law school is how to discredit an expert witness. For what its worth he graduated from Yale Summa Cum Laude.
As you have no doubt intuited by now I trust very few people to tell the complete unvarnished truth, especially in business matters and particularly when a great deal of money is at stake as nearly everyone involved has a particular point of view to sell. At the very least Rossi had lied by omission and probably outright in a few instances, but he has also been lied to, both by omission and directly and that's his best defense. It seems like a classic "David and Goliath" story to me and if I were Rossi's attorneys that's the way I would lay it out. After all, who could fault David for lying a little to avoid being beat up by Goliath? From what I could tell most Jurors based their ultimate decision on the perceived honesty of ordinary witnesses. Of course that is very subjective at best, but it always surprised me how often they got it right. IMHO no matter whether you're a multi-billionaire business owner, or a lowly inventor, how you come across on the witness stand is 90% of the battle.
One of the most disappointing cases I was involved in was especially discouraging. Right up until the Jury went in for deliberations I figured it was a toss up. To my amazement they got it totally right and found for me, the defendant. I didn't even have time to smile and pat my attorney on the back, before the Judge began lecturing the Jury on why they got it wrong and then proceeded to set aside their decision and found for the plaintiff and against me. Up until then I didn't even know Judges could do that, but apparently they can. It seems I had failed to sign one of the disclosure forms where it acknowledged receipt of a copy, not by the plaintiff, but me, my copy and the Judge decided this was technically an errors and omissions violation from her point of view. Whatever her bias, that was enough for the judge. Of course I could probably have filed for and gotten an appeal, and if the award had been for the 3 million dollars the plaintiff was asking for I certainly would have, but as it turned out she found damages against me for only $18,000. I certainly didn't feel good about paying it, but my legals fees for an appeal and new trial would have been much, much more.
I've actually spent quite a bit of time reading the files available. I love the depositions and have read most of them completely. I can even understand most of the legalese in the motions, but I get so bored with reading 10 pages to say something that could have usually been said in one paragraph that I usually just skim through them. I know everyone here is into detail and sites, but I don't have the time or inclination to play that game. Like I said earlier the Jurors are going to pay the most attention to the main players and ordinary witnesses. If they had to listen to a tenth of the stuff that's in these posts I'm sure they would simply nod off and they will do the same if it gets too technical in court. So, based on my general impression of the depositions I've read I think it's a toss up. I want Rossi to prevail because I have never considered he is a scam artist or even delusional. I think he has what he claims and I'm convince that even with producing only 250KW he still beat the heck out of a COP of 6. I'm convinced that if either side starts trying to explain and rationalize the data in Penons, like you and Jed do repeatedly, then that side will lose. As for myself, I'm still able to rationalize just about everything Rossi has said or done and I've not read anything in the depositions that changes that for me. I think Rossi is opinionated, cantankerous, belligerent, stubborn and a total narcissist, but in every interview I've watched him in he came across as sincere and honest and I believe that's what the Jury will see also. Even with that I believe it's still too close to call. I'm convinced that IH is lying about not having been able to replicate and I believe that is how it will come across to the Jury. As for whether the test was actually the GPT I believe there is no question given the evidence so far that the Jury will see as such.