On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:55:25 -0700, "
wrote:


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).

Motive -- here's my take on it.

The evidence Mottershead has gathered must be evaluated technically.
If the technical evaluation indicates a next step to be warranted,
then Truong's motivations or lack of same would be one factor to be
weighed, along with the evidence that Mottershead has gathered, and
countervailing material that Truong and his supporters might produce,
when judging Truong's guilt or innocence.

Mottershead's motivations are relevant if someone accuses HIM of
fabricating the evidence. In recent posts, Mottershead has offered
several sources to corroborate the material he's assembled. None of
these are under his control. Some of them would require a court order
to access.

If the expert evaluation of Mottershead's material indicates he didn't
fake it, then Mottershead's motivations are absolutely irrelevant.
Whether he did it because of a long standing hatred of Truong, or
because Kirsan slipped him money under the table, or because of his
childhood toilet training --- doesn't matter. He's out of the
picture.