Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Shane D.

Peter,

Well said, and that is why this is so laughable. Logic would say that if Rossi has what he says, we would not be here arguing over a lawsuit.

There are some people who just like to argue or take the underdog role because of a slight they once suffered. Most likely they have some kind of investment, personal or financial in the matter.

Surely Rossi could have just sold a few hundred 1MW plants, establish his credibility, and then go after his $89M. (Evidently there are some over in ECW with PO's for hundreds as we speak, LOL). IH would have gladly paid I would think. It seems to me that Rossi has decided that if he is going down, he is going to take IH/Darden/Vaughn down with him. This blackmail doesn't seem to be working but I am looking forward to the evidence disclosed in the trial. This would be understandably a very difficult feat for Abd to write up given the subtlety of what is disclosed and no recordings or transcripts available, but if anyone can do this, it would be him.

Quote from Shane D.

MD,

IH has submitted a couple JONP Rossisays into evidence. Forget which exhibit, but they are in there, and they are relevant. Not sure if one of them was Rossi claiming JMP's product (FTR, there was no product)) absorbed 100% of the supplied thermal, but if not in the docket now, it will probably be presented at trial. JONP is a rich source for Rossi contradictions (Rossisays), and no doubt JD has gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

I would be shocked if they haven't gone through it in great detail. And I would be shocked if nothing from the blog made it into testimony. I wouldn't be surprised if Jones Day starts the process of getting those statement in by making Rossi explain, on the record and in front of the jury, the difference between a "journal" and a "blog." (That's a choice that would depend on their feel for him as a witness, how he'll respond, if it would provoke him in ways likely to help their case, etc.)

But the selection of what goes in from the blog will be limited by relevance, available time, and jury tolerance.

Quote from MikeDunford

I would be shocked if they haven't gone through it in great detail. And I would be shocked if nothing from the blog made it into testimony. I wouldn't be surprised if Jones Day starts the process of getting those statement in by making Rossi explain, on the record and in front of the jury, the difference between a "journal" and a "blog." (That's a choice that would depend on their feel for him as a witness, how he'll respond, if it would provoke him in ways likely to help their case, etc.)

But the selection of what goes in from the blog will be limited by relevance, available time, and jury tolerance.

Yes. I have to say i think the psychology of this is tricky. Rossi is good at PR, and has a few real scientists who still adore him as inventor who is saving the world. Scientists alas are no better (and in many cases much worse) a judge of deception than most people. Rossi also (I'd guess) has a few real scientists who publish slightly way-out stuff on his blog-situated Journal of Nuclear Physics - though mostly what I've read there has been of very non-publishable quality. Rossi can claim that he peer reviews it - who can contradict? All you can really point out is that it is not listed, and has an impact factor so low it does not register. I don't see an internet Journal as being a deciding issue of quality in the 21st Century...

So the problem I see is that Rossi has in LENR found a perfect area for his deceptions. The field is viewed by many of those working within it to be persecuted by mainstream science. There is therefore no simple arbiter of quality - and Rossi can point to as much interest in his stuff as anyone else's. IH are in business to look for LENR - so they cannot say the whole field is rubbish. Unless they claim it was only Rossi's false claims that made them do this - but that does not wash either because of the investment after Rossi was known by them to be highly flakey, and their statements about other projects. IH have a tricky line to walk here even though by all normal standards Rossi behaves as an obvious con-man.

That is why, I believe, IH will want to stay away from too much detail on this. They can however point to the Rossi blog comments that are extremely weird, and other behaviour i'd guess most Jurors would view as crackpot. The many many people who are snakes an clowns would be a place to start.

I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction (more of a wild-ass guess, really) as to the outcome of this trial. It should be noted that: (1) this is more of a gut instinct call than anything else; and (2) my track record on trial predictions is mixed.

My prediction is that everyone is walking away from this one with nothing. Rossi loses his case, but IH loses their counterclaim, and each side ultimately pays its own attorneys fees and share of the costs.

Kevmo - not going to let you get away with the Rossi IP license buyout offer mention - that is yet another lie and it did not happen.

Regarding your other non-stop creative Planet Rossi inference pattern- do you think that your "Rossi realization" scenario included getting caught claiming that an empty reactor was generating as much excess heat output as a "loaded reactor"?

Quote from [email protected]

So then the only admissible bloviating is the relevant bloviating. That seems to be what both skeptics and Rossi fans have wanted, the bloviating to be addressed. This could weigh heavily against Rossi. But other things would work out well for Rossi, such as his claimed offer to refund IH if they relinquish claims to Rossi's supposedly worthless IP.

The skeptics and fans still might not get what they want. There are reasons (potentially, many reasons) why attorneys might not seek to admit relevant evidence.

The biggest reason is that not all relevant evidence is created equal. Legally speaking, relevance is like pregnancy. It's a yes/no question; while even lawyers might use phrases like 'marginally relevant' in casual conversation, there's no such thing as 'a little bit relevant' as far as the Frederal Rules of Evidence are concerned. And it's a low threshold. If the evidence has any tendency to make any material fact more likely, it's relevant.

In other words, just because a fact is relevant doesn't mean it's likely to be persuasive. And the lawyers will be dealing with a need to make sure that the jury (and judge) remain responsive to their witnesses and evidence. Overloading the jury with unnecessary evidence is to be avoided as much as possible.

To the extent that the bloviations are directly relevant to events at issue, they'll probably come in. Beyond that, there's a good chance that some of the bloviating will be used to attempt to establish that Rossi is an unreliable bloviating bloviator with a history of making unsubstantiated claims. But that will likely be done using the minimum amount of bloviation evidence that the attorneys feel will make the point, and the specific examples will be selected more with than in mind than any intent to survey the full range and depth of his bloviations.

Quote from [email protected]

Wouldn't that be a kick if Rossi claimed that he could PROVE his bloviations with a demo to the jury? It would just take a couple of million dollars to set up, blah blah blah, but why bother because the ERV report verifies his bloviating claim... Most of the time I see that Rossi has very little chance of prevailing, but there are some bloviating rabbits he could pull out of his hat.

There are a few reasons the demo offer wouldn't be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into them now, but will try later, if woodworker doesn't beat me to it.

Quote from PeterMetz

I don't understand why Rossi fans are so bent out of shape with IH and this trial. Worse immediate case for Rossi is he loses the suit and doesn't collect however many millions (at least $89M and maybe up to $300M if all damages are awarded) but he will still make an absolute fortune with his E-Cat and QuarkX (maybe the same thing) technology. This would be true even if he has to share with IH since I believe they own the rights of E-CatX related technology over certain areas. And Rossi's reputation will be easily restored. He should have no trouble financing this fantastic technology even after a failed lawsuit. On the other hand if he doesn't have the commercially viable revolutionary technology then he is doomed and forever branded a fraud and failure--but for Rossi fans, this should not be a concern, as Rossi should have the last laugh.

Rossi's believers are getting “bent out of shape” because Rossi, after so many years, has produced nothing.

We know about his jail time in Italy and his fraudulent behaviour is well known and on the record.

But if, despite all that, you believe he is some kind of a genius then where are the goods?

No solid demonstrations that Rossi hasn’t interfered with.

No product sold (despite the lies otherwise).

His followers are understandably frustrated.

So the obvious thing to do is to look for who is to blame, but not Rossi of course.

It must be IH who are evil.

It must be a conspiracy by the government.

All these evil forces are stopping Rossi from selling a single ecat or QuarkX or whatever his latest invention is.

The only other explanation is that Rossi is a delusional crook, but that would not be logical would it?

Kevmo - Thanks for proving my point. Planet Rossi circular logic only works on Planet Rossi. I'll say it again - it is a lie that Rossi offered to buyout his IP from IH. Your repeat it to make it true attempts do not work in the real world.

Ah Siffer - so nice of you to come back under your real name. I've got large plans for you my little pretty! Keep it coming.

Quote from [email protected]

Dewey: It has been shown upthread that Rossi claimed to offer the IP buyout. It may be a Rossi lie but it IS a claim on his blog, along with other bloviating claims that many of us would like to see addressed. So quit calling it a lie unless you can prove that Rossi did not claim it.

The moderators of this forum preclude me from responding to your "loaded insults" so I would suggest you quit posting them.

Dewey is close to Darden et al, who has stated on oath that it did not happen (at least I think so - somone will correct me if not).

So what do you want Dewey to say: "i'm not sure who is telling the truth here, my friend Tom in a sworne deposition or known liar Rossi in an off-hand blog comment"?

I think you are on another planet.

It is, from anyone's POV, a reasonable inference that the blog comment is a lie. Unless the same info is supported in a sworn Rossi deposition. Although not all the depo evidence is released I'd expect Rossi's side to highlight that one if it existed?

If we have Rossi sworn statement against Darden the same it is less clear, except that Rossi is a known liar and Darden not. And in that case Dewey's comment is still a reasonable inference - especially because he will believe strongly in this case that Tom is not lying.

THH