THE INVESTIGATION

Not so fast, Larry Parr! The List is completely partisan, eliminates others
from consideration, and concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says
this
is not so, but what he does is my measure, not what he says. -- Phil
Innes

Dear Phil,

I'm not so sure that the Murray list was tilted
against Paul Truong, and I agree that the question of
motive is paramount unless there is proof rather than
indications or easily faked circumstances that PT's
fingers were on the offending keyboard(s).

I must wait to see all the evidence before arriving at
a verdict. Truong's guilt is counter-intuitive if you know
Susan and have followed his career as a promoter. I've
always considered these two to be greedy in a positive
sense, which means they are eminently practical people.

Faking thousands of messages over the course of
several years takes time away from making money out of
chess. I cannot imagine either of them sacrificing SO
MUCH financially productive time to such an unremunerative
exercise in identity-theft.

I read one argument against PT and Susan from, I
believe, Stephen Jones. He has noticed they do not
appear to be hopping angry that someone has set
them up and do not seem to be pursuing the guilty
party vigorously.

Two points: 1. Different people react differently to
adversity; some of them collapse or grow depressed even
though they may be completely innocent; and 2. How do
any of us know what PT and Susan are doing about the charges?

Are they obligated o tell us they have hired an investigator or
enlisted close friends to help them in the search for an unknown
villain, if such they have done? Indeed, if I were they, I would keep
any such emdeavor as secret as possible.

I agree that PT and Susan ought not to be the
only ones who are expected to answer questions
concerning Fake Sams and Gordons, though they would be
wise to provide their side of the story.

There is an animus among several here against the
defense of being framed. Yet right up in your neck of
the woods there have been literally hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of drug convictions overturned because cops
planted drugs in cars to advance their own careers.

I do not find the "framed" defense to be an
unlikely explanation, especially in the area of
computer messages.

Stephen Jones is right about one thing: the USCF
Forum should be open for intellectual firefighting
among the various parties involved -- PT and Susan,
Brian Lafferty, Hal Bogner, Mike Murray, Sam Sloan,
Randy Bauer and others.

As the state of the evidence now stands, I think
PT and Susan would likely prevail in a raucous debate.
I think it was, in Barbara Tuchman's phrase a
"woodenheaded mistake" to shut down the Forum on this
and other issues. But what can you expect from a gaggle
of politicos who are so sensitive and fearful of exposure?

Yours, Larry Parr



Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:25 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:


I agree. We need transparency and full disclosure of the expert's
credentials and the reason for picking that expert over others, and
some view of the report.

And we shouldn't forget that the expert's report can't send someone to
jail or force anyone to pay damages -- that next step would be up to
the courts.

And I would also think that after the report is presented to the
appropriate group in the USCF, before any final Federation judgment is
rendered, it seems only fair that people accused in the report would
have rights of rebuttal, the right to present their own expert to
that group, and probably the right to some sort of appeal.