I have been told that Ms. Polgar wrote last evening on her blog that her
expert had reviewed the evidence and found that it cleared her (and her
husband?).

It is my understanding that more than one expert has reviewed and/or is
reviewing the Mottershead Report privately. None have reached the
conclusion of Ms. Polgars's "expert."

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:UJ7Pi.10471$br2.6897@trndny03...
I have been told that Ms. Polgar wrote last evening on her blog that her
expert had reviewed the evidence and found that it cleared her (and her
husband?).

It is my understanding that more than one expert has reviewed and/or is
reviewing the Mottershead Report privately. None have reached the
conclusion of Ms. Polgars's "expert."


Here is the xext of Polgar's statement:

"One test has come back fully clearing both of us. But due to the legal
nature of this case, I cannot comment further. As I said, I expect the judge
to dismiss this case. Many more facts will come out in due time.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar"

Was this test done by an expert? If so, tell us who he is Susan and let us
see his report. I find it difficult that to beleive that an expert would
clear both of you. I do think you will be able to find an expert to testify
that the results of Mottershead's investigation are "inconclusive." There
are plenty of experts for hire in the computer identity field that give this
kind of testimony all the time. The key is to find two or three really
independent experts and let them review the evidence independently--then
compare their conclusions.

On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

news:UJ7Pi.10471$br2.6897@trndny03...

I have been told that Ms. Polgar wrote last evening on her blog that her
expert had reviewed the evidence and found that it cleared her (and her
husband?).

It is my understanding that more than one expert has reviewed and/or is
reviewing the Mottershead Report privately. None have reached the
conclusion of Ms. Polgars's "expert."

Here is the xext of Polgar's statement:

"One test has come back fully clearing both of us. But due to the legal
nature of this case, I cannot comment further. As I said, I expect the judge
to dismiss this case. Many more facts will come out in due time.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar"

Was this test done by an expert? If so, tell us who he is Susan and let us
see his report. I find it difficult that to beleive that an expert would
clear both of you. I do think you will be able to find an expert to testify
that the results of Mottershead's investigation are "inconclusive." There
are plenty of experts for hire in the computer identity field that give this
kind of testimony all the time. The key is to find two or three really
independent experts and let them review the evidence independently--then
compare their conclusions.

I think I would qualify as an expert witness in the Federal Courts.
The proof you seek, Judge Lafferty, does not
exist. You can't prove a negative. It is impossible for Paul Troung or
Susan Polgar to prove their innocence. So,
in my opinion, Susan Polgar is a liar.

Marucs Roberts
B.S. Computer Sciecne
Georgia Institute of Technology

On Oct 10, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

news:UJ7Pi.10471$br2.6897@trndny03...

I have been told that Ms. Polgar wrote last evening on her blog that her
expert had reviewed the evidence and found that it cleared her (and her
husband?).

It is my understanding that more than one expert has reviewed and/or is
reviewing the Mottershead Report privately. None have reached the
conclusion of Ms. Polgars's "expert."

Here is the xext of Polgar's statement:

"One test has come back fully clearing both of us. But due to the legal
nature of this case, I cannot comment further. As I said, I expect the judge
to dismiss this case. Many more facts will come out in due time.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar"

Was this test done by an expert? If so, tell us who he is Susan and let us
see his report. I find it difficult that to beleive that an expert would
clear both of you. I do think you will be able to find an expert to testify
that the results of Mottershead's investigation are "inconclusive." There
are plenty of experts for hire in the computer identity field that give this
kind of testimony all the time. The key is to find two or three really
independent experts and let them review the evidence independently--then
compare their conclusions.

Was their expert Gregory?

However, I expect that she is right that the suit will be dismissed.
The shoddy, scattershot filing by Sloan naming defendants with no
involvement and including much extraneous unrelated asides and
innuendo does not bode well for his case.

I think a tightly focused lawsuit would be heard in court. But not pro
se nonsense. A real firm who could serve discovery on isp's and all
related parties and hire multitudes of expert witnesses is the way to
go here. What was filed doesn't stand much chance in my lay opinion.

"Javert" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 10, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

news:UJ7Pi.10471$br2.6897@trndny03...

I have been told that Ms. Polgar wrote last evening on her blog that her
expert had reviewed the evidence and found that it cleared her (and her
husband?).

It is my understanding that more than one expert has reviewed and/or is
reviewing the Mottershead Report privately. None have reached the
conclusion of Ms. Polgars's "expert."

Here is the xext of Polgar's statement:

"One test has come back fully clearing both of us. But due to the legal
nature of this case, I cannot comment further. As I said, I expect the
judge
to dismiss this case. Many more facts will come out in due time.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar"

Was this test done by an expert? If so, tell us who he is Susan and let
us
see his report. I find it difficult that to beleive that an expert would
clear both of you. I do think you will be able to find an expert to
testify
that the results of Mottershead's investigation are "inconclusive."
There
are plenty of experts for hire in the computer identity field that give
this
kind of testimony all the time. The key is to find two or three really
independent experts and let them review the evidence independently--then
compare their conclusions.

Was their expert Gregory?

ROTFL! Why didn't I think of that?



However, I expect that she is right that the suit will be dismissed.
The shoddy, scattershot filing by Sloan naming defendants with no
involvement and including much extraneous unrelated asides and
innuendo does not bode well for his case.

I think a tightly focused lawsuit would be heard in court. But not pro
se nonsense. A real firm who could serve discovery on isp's and all
related parties and hire multitudes of expert witnesses is the way to
go here. What was filed doesn't stand much chance in my lay opinion.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:11:47 -0000, Javert
wrote:


Was their expert Gregory?

However, I expect that she is right that the suit will be dismissed.
The shoddy, scattershot filing by Sloan naming defendants with no
involvement and including much extraneous unrelated asides and
innuendo does not bode well for his case.

I think a tightly focused lawsuit would be heard in court. But not pro
se nonsense. A real firm who could serve discovery on isp's and all
related parties and hire multitudes of expert witnesses is the way to
go here. What was filed doesn't stand much chance in my lay opinion.

Yup.

As an attorney, I frequently am involved in cases in which the
opposing sides have radically different views of the facts. It
becomes important to determine who is and is not telling the truth.

Anyone who says that they can look someone in the eye and tell if they
are lying is simply wrong. It cannot be done that way. The only way
in which I have had any success is trying to put myself into the shoes
of the party and ask, "OK, believing what they say, what would I do if
I were in that situation?" If the party did not do what I think would
have been the natural thing to do in those circumstances, perhaps the
party is not telling the truth about what actually happened.

Put yourselves in the shoes of someone who has been accused of posting
under false names. And suppose that someone else has discovered that
the IP addresses of the posts were those of your computer. And that
those IP addresses had been following your international travels. And
suppose that you really did not do it.

If it were me, my immediate reaction should be that someone must have
been plotting at great lengths to get me for years. Someone has been
cleverly posting these false posts using my IP address knowing that,
sooner or later, someone else would discover the truth and place the
blame on me. Someone out there has been maniacally working overtime
to ruin me. And they're still loose.

If I were in those shoes, I would consider Hal and Brian merely to be
dupes who fell into the true villain's trap. They innocently became a
part of his devious plot. If it had not been them, sooner or later it
would have been someone else. I would turn over heaven and earth to
find the true villain and put a stop to any more devious plots.

In my mind that would be the natural reaction of anyone. Now, is that
the reaction we are observing?

Stephen Jones

wrote:

I think I would qualify as an expert witness in the Federal Courts.

hee hee


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Oct 10, 4:03 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
wrote:

I think I would qualify as an expert witness in the Federal Courts.

hee hee

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Most anyone would qualty as an expert witness. This is not a case
where a PhD will help.
Anyone can fake anyone. I know that, you know that. People want to
beleive it can be tracked
down, with percision. The internet was not designed for security.

Anyone can spoof an IP address. For 18 months, this is odd, but it is
possible. For the web site
administrator to find out about it, and compare IP addresses, this is
quite incredible, but Paul
Troung could be innocent. Look at poor OJ Simpson,

Marcus Roberts

I think a tightly focused lawsuit would be heard in court. But not pro
se nonsense. A real firm who could serve discovery on isp's and all
related parties and hire multitudes of expert witnesses is the way to
go here. What was filed doesn't stand much chance in my lay opinion.- Hide quoted text -

I agree with this. And who is going to fund it? Even in the face of
criminal activity, members of the
US Chess Federation's executive board are above the law. Most of the
parties invovled are spread out
over North America. The NEXUS is Illnois, the USCF's state of
incorproation. I can't travel to Chicago
to sue them for health reasons. Who has 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 thosand
dollars to drop?

This about money, unless the US Attoreny gets invovled.

Paul Troung can get away with anything he wants, becasue he on the
Chess Federation's
executive board? The Federation's executive board is covering up the
data, and their EB members
are threatening to sue victim's of Paul's alleged rampage of death
threats, becasue they feel
they have been libled. COVER UP THE CRIME, OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, it
doesn't matter.
Paul Trong is going to threaten to KILL YOU, if you get in his way, or
offend his wife?

The problem is that Sloan is capable of filing a coherent PRO SE
lawsuit, and won't keep
to the issue.

Marcus Roberts