On Apr 24, 2:29*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Apr 24, 12:02*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
I think perhaps you accept that not everything
was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
known to yourself.
Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.

The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
stuff. *Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
this and other forums.

Yes, I think that the PT/SP camp deserves much of the blame for the
level of acrimony. From the very first reaction, attacking Motterhead
and all people who regarded the evidence against them as serious
vehemently, their choices were poor and seemed to indicate guilt. Many
red herrings have been brought up by their supporters, which wasted
everyone's time and did not help cooperation. The main guilt on the
other side relates to bringing up issues involving Susan's children;
those who did so only helped feed a sense of persecution on an issue
which is both extremely sensitive and completely irrelevant to the
case. You, Mike, are of course not part of this.

I still believe that the likelihood is that Truong is guilty, but the
information given to me produced an alternative hypothesis which is
within the range of reasonable doubt, and deserves investigation.

I have not yet found whether such an investigation has already been
conducted. I have now heard from the PT/SP side, and I am trying to
find out from the other side what their perspective is. I will try as
much as possible to let people know what views I feel are reasonable,
without breaking any confidences.

Jerry Spinrad


Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
baffled. *Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
a major flag of innocence. *I'm at a loss to understand how this could
be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.