Re: Meeting Floyd

In article <iehn23tmmiq86qq0h6ir95b7h4mj86cuvk@xxxxxxx>,
Mark Hickey <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <paom23956e1g3er62qg28b9hma8ob59846@xxxxxxx>,
Mark Hickey <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim, you didn't address my main question. My position is a purely
logical one, based on hard documentation supplied by the lab
itself.

No, it's the documentation as supplied by Floyd's team and filtered
in the way they want.

I can't look at the problems that those documents reflect and come
to any conclusion other than the testing is FAR too flawed to make
a presumption of guilt. I appreciate your opinion, but you've
seemingly avoided influencing that opinion by factoring in the
obvious glaring problems with the testing, handling and protocol
that's not even debatable (unless, as I've said many times, the
documents are actually forgeries - which is very unlikely).

Forgeries would be a very bad plan as this would come out in the
hearing and utterly discredit Floyd (and his attorneys would never
work again). But you can twist and filter and massage the facts to
create a certain perception and conclusion, and that's what Floyd is
paying his legal team to do. Clearly their strategy was effective
with you. If you had seen a similar presentation from the
prosecutorial side, you might come to the opposite conclusion. You
only heard one side of the story that night with Floyd and Baker.
IMHO until you've hard the other side, you can't come to a valid
conclusion.

Being "open minded" doesn't mean it's a good idea to ignore facts.
;-)

It's pretty simple. I don't trust what Floyd's legal team has to
say on the issue. They are paid to tailor the information to bias
you to a certain conclusion. They may turn out to be right, and
that's fine. But I am not going to come to a conclusion until I
have heard all the evidence.

OK - now let me ask a simple yes/no question to follow up on our
growing agreement.

Given the discrepancies made painfully clear in the documentation
that Floyd's team presented, do you feel that there's any way to
argue that the testing done by the lab CAN be trusted to establish
guilt in this case? I'm talking about results that varied by over
200% for the same sample, doing the same test. I'm talking about the
lack of blinding. I'm talking about protocol violations like the same
tech doing both tests and questions over chain of custody (or even
whose sample they were testing). I'm talking about equipment being
operated out of the design specs. You feel all that can exist in
documentary form, and the results STILL be viewed as valid?

Mark, let me say it again: I DON'T KNOW. I am waiting for the other
side to have its say. It's just as simple as that.

I don't get why you have so much invested in trying to back me into a
corner, Mark. Nor why you seem so desperately want me to come to a
conclusion before the hearing actually happens. I am not willing to
make a decision about whether Floyd is guilty before the hearing and all
the evidence is presented. You're not going to get me to do that, so
you might as well stop trying.

That doesn't seem at all logical to me. I'd hate to have you on a
jury deciding my fate... ("yeah, we have video evidence of Mark being
100 miles away at the time, but since his legal team presented it,
I'm gonna ignore it"). ;-)

If I was on your jury, Mark, I'd be weighing the evidence and arguments
presented by both sides to determine, as best I can, what the truth
might be. Not just the evidence and arguments of one side.
Unfortunately for Floyd, the video evidence is quite abundant that he
was there on the day in question. :-D
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... Given the discrepancies made painfully clear in the documentation ... Mark, let me say it again: ... the evidence is presented. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Meeting Floyd
    ... corner, Mark. ... the evidence is presented. ... Unfortunately for Floyd, the video evidence is quite abundant that he ... Hopefully that administration can repair the ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Judge rules 1976 "Cain and Abel" murder trial unfair
    ... convicted on the evidence. ... More recent picture of Jerry Mark. ... prosecutors will have far less forensic evidence to present. ... When a police officer questioned him after the murders, ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Quiz
    ... As usual when the evidence appears Mark has to hide it ... By the way Hitokappu Bay was the place, on Etorofu Island. ... Mark is trying to pretend in order to make his conspiracy work. ...
    (soc.history.war.misc)
  • Re: Bicylist shot and killed for thrill
    ... Mark Hickey wrote: ... >>>evidence available at the time. ... >>with examining that issue is the Senate Select Committee Phase II ... that the UN Weapons Inspectors lied. ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)