Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead

The evidence pointing to Paul Truong being
the Fake Sam Sloan has been public now since September 26 -- over two
months. During all that time, there has not been a single item of
evidence brought forward on the other side.

Truong's defense from the beginning was simply a denial, attacks on
the credibility of the person who gathered the evidence, objections
that it was an invasion of his privacy for that evidence to be
gathered, and suggestions of various "possibilities" that he was
framed.

Two months later, he and his defenders are still only talking about
"possibilities". We aren't debating evidence from the Truong
defenders. We are still only debating just how possible hypothetical
possibilities are, and their probability compared to the vastly
simpler and straight-forward conclusion that Truong is responsible for
the FSS posts.

It should be noted that this isn't the first time that the "I've been
framed" defense has been raised by Truong and his defenders. One has
only to search in this forum for the discussion of his claims of
having a Ph.D.. When people produced solid evidence from the
Internet Archive that web sites under Truong's control had pages
asserting that he had a Ph.D., he claimed these were forgeries. Not
a shred of evidence was ever produced of how someone could have
obtained his AOL passwords and perpetrated the forgeries, or how
someone planted false evidence in the Internet Archive. No
explanation was ever given of how Truong did not notice a forged
resume on his own web site for years. It was enough for Truong
simply to deny it and talk of the possibility of forgeries, and there
were people who claimed that the case had not been proved. A mere
denial and a flat assertion of "forgery" was enough of a defense for
them when it came to Truong.

This time the offense is more serious than padding a resume with false
academic credentials, and there is a great deal more evidence --
evidence that would be even more difficult to forge or fake. The
defenses are once again "forgery", "hacking", etc. And once again
this defense, unsupporteed by evidence, is enough to raise sufficient
doubt in some people's minds that they feel obliged to adopt a "wait
and see" approach.

However, this time the issue is not going to be dismissed by invoking
mere possibilities.