Re: We Don't Need A Confession
- From: klgore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Oct 2007 18:15:10 -0700
On Oct 17, 7:26 am, "Chess One" <inn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snipped some stuff from Marcus)
marcus, i even wrote in the nytimes that an investigation /should/ continue,
but an open one into the false poster. what i am writing here is that this
is not a court, although people are using it that way for 'fun'
It is admirable that you wish to pursue this in such a high-minded
fashion.
It is good to keep that point of view in mind. I propose that the
reaction
you receive here, which you [dismissively :-) ] attribute to
purposeful
attempts at running a kangaroo court (which may be close for some
posters), results naturally from the issue's development. Let's hope
I can clarify this. Prior to Truong being associated with the posts,
there was no official energy for finding out about impersonators on
rgcp (or anywhere). This kind of exploration is outside of the uscf's
zone of interest. The uscf's interest precisely and specificly came
about _because_ Truong was associated ('accused') with the behavior.
Thus, uscf's (and largely this group) interest is DIRECTLY whether
or not Truong is the culprit. Your repeated calls for a refocus to
finding
the culprit(s) are not embraced because that's not the 'point'. The
uscf needs/wants to know if these officers have behaved in
ways that could reflect on their suitability for service. Your
approach,
if successful, could do that. However, that is not likely to be the
most efficient, nor effective, approach to answer the question that
most
interests uscf (and those here?). We have a charge. We have some
evidence on both sides (the report, schedules, motives, ...).
Directly
assessing the quality of the evidence for and against the individuals
certainly is another, valid, approach. That is hardly a revolutionary
concept and reflects typical adversarial (court) proceedings. The
energy and focus here seems to be directed twoards this latter
approach
and you shouldn't expect to be congratulated or embraced for pushing
elseways.
Phil, I've been disappointed in some of the things you point out as
i am not defending criminal conduct! i suggest i am defending criminal
/process/ which means you do not prejudge people to be guilty. this is why i
need psychiatric help, etc.
potentially exculpating. I've tried to interpret them more as example
warning flags--that there may be odd circumstances that conspire to
make the innocent look very guilty--and that you recognize that from
an evidentiary point of view, they carry little, or less weight than
some
of the other evidence. One example would be classified as
'testimonials.'
You specifically, and others too, have offered that it is totally out
of
character or inconceivable for him to have done this. This has some
weight, but comparatively little when compared to 'hard' evidence.
[Consider the comments from the neighbors when Joe Normal is
discovered to be a serial killer--"Never suspected" "Such a normal
guy" "Our kids played together all the time." Of course I make no
euqivalence between murder and impersonation but merely point
out that even gross aberrations of behavior can be disguised quite
adequately from the public.] In this current case, we have two
witness
statements that show both of the involved principals have acted in
ways that demonstrate they are willing to distort in some
circumstances
(Truong w.r.t. his title, and the coworker who stated PT said he had a
doctorate; and Polgar with her lie that she did not forward that
message
to anyone other than Bill and Bill [I think]). This observation
further
degrades the quality of the exculpating observations.
It would be easier for me to read, and appreciate, your contributions
if every now and then you made it clear that you aren't evaluating
_quality_ of evidence as you offer alternatives to 'Truong is guilty'.
K
phil innes
.
- References:
- Re: We Don't Need A Confession
- From: Chess One
- Re: We Don't Need A Confession
- Prev by Date: Re: Ten Times A Day
- Next by Date: The future of Chess: VENDETTA ATTACKS
- Previous by thread: Re: We Don't Need A Confession
- Next by thread: Re: We Don't Need A Confession
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
